LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Received  JAN    16    1893'  '■ 

Accessions  No.  STonioicf  .  Class  No. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 
,  in  2007  with  funding  from 
IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/articlesdiscussiOOtrumrich 


'tjhiveksitv; 


VHEELBARR0V 


ARTICLES  AND  DISCUSSIONS 


LABOR  QUESTION 


INCLUDING 


The  Controversy   with   Mr.  Lyman  J.   Gage  on  the   Ethics  of  the 

Board  of  Trade ;  and  also  the  Controversy  with  Mr. 

Hugh    0.  Pentecost,   and  others,   on    the 

Single    Tax  Question. 


f      f 


[UKIVBRSITT] 

THE  OPEN  COURT  PUBLISHING  COMPANY, 

169  LaSalle  Street, 

1890. 


5^cnr(o(o 


TO 

EDAVARD  C.  HEGELEK,  ESQ., 

OF  LA  SALLE,   ILL., 
THIS  LITTLE  BOOK  IS  DEDICATED 

AS    A    MARK    OF 

RESPECT  AND  ESTEEM, 
BY  HIS  FRIEND 

WHEELBARROW. 


.    PUBLISHERS'  PREFACE. 


The  articles  of  this  book  were  written  by  a  man  who  worked 
for  years  and  years,  his  early  childhood  not  excluded,  as  an  un- 
skilled laborer.  With  pickaxe,  shovel,  and  wheelbarrow  he  helped 
to  lay  the  first  foundations  of  several  railroads  in  this  country.  So 
he  knows  from  experience  the  sufferings  and  hardships  working- 
men  have  to  endure.  His  buoyant  genius  struggled  against  the 
odds,  the  restrictions,  the  impediments  of  his  position  ;  and  by  wisely 
applied  exertion  he  grew  in  importance  as  a  man,  he  came  to  the 
front  as  a  character  who  dared  to  stand  up  for  his  ideals  of  freedom 
and  equal  right.  Honors  were  then  bestowed  upon  him  :  he  was 
elected  to  represent  his  fellow-citizens  in  the  legislature  of  his  State, 
and  in  war  he  rose  to  the  rank  of  General.  He  worked  no  longer 
with  the  wheelbarrow,  but  with  his  brains  ;  he  was  powerful  as  an 
orator  and  wielded  his  pen  with  ability  and  vigor.  But  greater 
than  his  genius  is  the  honesty  of  his  aspirations,  the  nobility  of  his 
ideals,  the  broadness  of  his  views.  While  aspiring  to  more  intel- 
lectual and  higher  work,  his  sympathies  with  the  laboring  classes 
never  waned. 

Wheelbarrow,  however,  is  not  a  demagogue.  His  articles  are 
not  written  in  an  incendiary  spirit.  They  are  sustained  by  a  moral 
purport.  He  does  not  preach  hatred  of  class  and  has  no  intention 
to  destroy  the  order  of  society.  He  stands  upon  the  principle  of 
justice,  and  thus  he  does  not  attempt  to  benefit  the  laborer  by  de- 


•  6  PUBLISHERS'  PREFACE. 

trading  from  the  employer.  Not  by  pulling  down  those  who  rise 
above  the  average  man  can  we  hope  to  progress,  but  by  lifting  the 
average  man  to  a  higher  existence,  by  teaching  him  how  to  rise 
and  how  to  work  for  an  amelioration  of  his  condition. 

Wheelbarrow  is  no  defender  of  one-sided  theories,  no  believer 
in  Utopian  millenniums.  He  is  a  man  of  practical  life  ;  he  knows 
there  is  no  panacea  for  all  the  evils  that  flesh  is  heir  to  ;  he  knows 
there  is  no  royal  road  of  progress,  for  progress  can  be  accom- 
plished only  by  honest  work  and  endeavor. 

The  present  volume  contains  the  matured  fruit  of  his  manhood, 
his  inmost  self,  his  soul  of  soul.  We  hope  that  the  little  book  wil 
do  a  great  missionary  work  and  contribute  towards  a  peaceful  solu- 
tion of  the  labor  problem. 


A    (U/^     Z-JH^    /C^ 

^-^u.^^   ^L,.-..-^    if^^j^  ^^^^Lt^^-J^ 


f 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Autobiography 1 1 

Signing  the  Document 43 

Live  and  not  let  Live 49 

The  Laokoon  of  Labor 54 

Making  Scarcity 58 

Competition  in  Trades 65 

To   Arms  ! 71 

Monopoly  on  Strike 77 

Give  us  a  King 82 

Convict   Labor. 89 

Chopping  Sand 94 

Honest  and  Dishonest  Wages 98 

Payment  in  Promises  to  Pay 104 

The  Workingman's  Dollar iii 

The  Paper  Dollar , 117 

The  Shrinkage  of  Values 123 

Monetary   Problems.     A  Series  of  Questions  Addressed    to 

' '  Wheelbarrow  " 1 28 

Wheelbarrow  in  Reply 129 

The  Poets  of  Liberty  and  Labor  : — 

Gerald  Massey 137 

Robert  Burns 145 

Thomas  Hood ; 155 

Henry  George  and  Land  Taxation 163 

Words  and  Work 169 

Jim  The  Inventor 175 

Economic  Conferences.     1 179 

Economic  Conferences.     II.     Banking  and  the  Social  System  189 

Economic  Conferences.    Ill 198 


lo  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

The  Ethics  of  The  Board  of  Trade.     A  Controversy  with 
Mr.  Lyman  J.   Gage. 

Making  Br^ad  Dear.     By  Wheelbarrow 211 

Corners  and  the  Board  of  Trade.  A  Criticism  of  Wheel- 
barrow's Essay  "  Making  Bread  Dear."  By  a  Sympa- 
thizer (Lyman  J.  Gage) 216 

Making  Bread  Cheap.     An  Answer  to  the  Criticism  of 

"a  Sympathizer,"  by  Wheelbarrow 223 

The  two  Sides  of  the  Question.  A  Rejoinder  to  Wheel- 
barrow on    "Making  Bread  Dear,"  by  a  Sympathizer 

(Lyman  J.  Gage) 232 

The  Single  Tax  Question.     Letters  written  in  the  Contro- 
versy upon  that  Subject 241 

The  Source  of  Poverty.     A  Reply  by  Wheelbarrow  to 

Mr.  L.'s  Criticism 243 

Is  the  Single  Tax  the  Sole  Cure  ?     Reply  to  Mr.  S.  L.  .  252 

Who  makes  the  ' '  Land  Value  "  of  a  Farm  ?...', 256 

Natural  Opportunities 260 

The  Single  Tax  and  Georgeism 262 

Mr.  Pentecost  and  Georgeism 266 

Confiscation 270 

Private  Property  in  Land 273 

The  Coming  Fight  for  Confiscation 276 

The  Right  of  Eminent  Domain 281 

Land  Values  and  Paper  Titles 284 

Production  and  Land-Ownership 290 

Cheapen  Land  by  Taxing  it 293 

Users  of  Land,  and  Owners  of  Land '. 295 

The  Cut-worm  and  the  Weevil 299 


^^   OF  THB        ^ 

IVBESIT71 

AUTOBIOGRAPHY. 


A  S  to  where  and  when  I  was  born?  Well,  ''it  was 
many  and  many  a  year  ago  in  the  Kingdom  by  the 
Sea";  in  that  Babylon  where  pictures  of  human  life  are 
•seen  in  strongest  light  and  shade  \  where  opposite  ex- 
tremes menace  each  other  forever,  and  where  Dives 
and  Lazarus  exhibit  the  most  glaring  antithesis  in  this 
world.  There  I  passed  my  childhood  and  my  youth, 
and  there  at  a  very  early  age  I  entered  the  ranks  of 
labor. 

In  entering  this  world,  as  in  other  ventures,  much 
depends  on  getting  a  good  start.  If  a  human  life  be- 
gins in  uncertainty  and  dispute,  its  journey  will  very 
likely  be  hilly,  rough,  and  full  of  controvers)^  It  is  a 
perilous  thing  for  a  man  to  be  born  at  midnight,  liter- 
ally between  two  days,  so  that  he  can  never  have  a 
birthday,  nor  tell  how  old  he  is.  Besides,  think  of  the 
evil  auguries  connected  with  low  twelve,  '  '■  when  church- 
yards yawn,"  when  disembodied  spirits  walk  the  earth 
for  punishment,  when  mischief  broods  in  the  time,  and 
elfish  goblins  hide  in  careless  babies  who  trespass 
into  the  world  at  that  unlucky  hour. 

Before  I  was  ten  minutes  old  I  found  myself  in 


1 2  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

trouble  about  my  birthday,  and  on  that  important 
question  my  parents  were  divided  in  opinion.  My 
mother  voted  for  the  30th,  but  my  father  thought  I 
was  born  on  the  31st.  The  doctor,  who  had  oppor- 
tunely looked  at  his  watch,  was  invited  to  settle  the 
question,  and  he  unsettled  it  forever.  He  decided 
that  I  was  not  born  either  on  the  30th  or  on  the  31st, 
but  on  the  very  instant  of  midnight,  and  consequently 
not  properly  born  at  all. 

That  question  being  satisfactorily  unsettled,  a  new 
debate  arose  concerning  the  place  where  I  was  born. 
It  so  happened  that  the  dividing  line  between  the  par- 
ishes of  St.  Margaret  and  St.  John  run  through  my 
father's  house  and  lengthwise  along  my  mother's  bed, 
so  the  disputatious  genie  who  had  taken  charge  of  my 
destiny  pretended  to  be  anxious  about  my  parish,  a 
matter  in  which  I  never  took  any  interest  whatever. 
After  embroiling  the  whole  neighborhood  for  several 
days,  it  was  agreed  that  the  controversy  be  referred 
to  the  respective  rectors  of  St.  Margaret's  and  St. 
John's  parishes ;  and  the  tradition  states,  although  I 
don't  believe  it,  that  they  very  sensibly  tossed  up  a 
shilling  to  decide  it.  The  story  goes  that  the  rector  of 
St.  John  won  the  toss,  and  at  once  decided  that  I  was 
born  in  the  other  parish.  In  this  way  he  relieved  him- 
self of  all  responsibility  on  my  account,  and  threw  the 
whole  burthen  of  me  upon  St.  Margaret. 

When  the  entry  belonging  to  me  in  the  baptismal 
register  came  to  be  written,  it  was  determined  by  the 


A  UTOBIOGRAPHY,  1 3 

rector  that  the  date  of  my  birth  must  be  settled.  So  he 
decided  that  as  it  was  always  Friday  night  until  Sat- 
urday morning,  and  as  there  could  not  be  two  twelve 
o'clock's  in  one  night,  therefore  I  was  born  on  Friday, 
the  30th,  and  so  it  was  writ  in  the  baptismal  register 
with  his  own  hand,  where  I  have  seen  it  with  my  own 
eyes.  I  wish  he  had  strained  a  point  and  made  it  the 
31st,  because  it  is  luckier  to  be  born  on  Saturday 
morning  than  on  Friday  night,  and  I  believe  that  if  he 
could  conscientiously  have  decided  for  Saturday,  it 
would  have  been  luckier  for  me. 

Listening  when  a  child  to  those  family-legends,  my 
curiosity  was  aroused,  and  when  I  grew  up  to  man- 
hood, I  was  driven  by  that  same  genie  to  go  and  ex- 
amine the  record  for  myself.  I  was  courteoTisly  in- 
troduced to  the  baptismal  register,  and  there  I  found 
that  I  was  officially  born  on  the  30th  of  December,  in 
the  parish  of  St.  Margaret,  in  the  city  of  Westminster. 
This  was  quieting  enough,  but  I  was  shocked  like 
Robinson  Crusoe  at  the  footprint  in  the  sand,  when  I 
discovered  that  this  record  threw  a  doubt  upon  my 
name. 

Of  course,  born  in  such  a  doubtful  way,  the  strings 
of  my  life  were  tangled  into  hard  knots  which  could 
never  be  untied.  The  new  puzzle  was  made  in  this 
way :  My  father's  name  was  Mark,  and  my  uncle's 
name  was  Matthew,  so  it  was  appointed  that  I  should 
be  called  Mark,  Matthew  ;  but  as  this  would  have  been 
an  inversion  of  the  apostolic  order,  something  like  the 


14  WHEELBARROW. 

Lord's  prayer  backwards,  it  was  finally  determined 
that  I  should  be  called  Matthew,  Mark.  ''Too  much 
honor,  Cromwell,  too  much  honor,"  for  any  baby  born 
in  the  humbler  walks  of  life,  as  the  rector  properly 
thought,  for  he  clipped  the  name  and  wrote  it  simply 
Mark  in  the  baptismal  register.  He  thought  one 
saint  of  eminence  was  enough  for  any  poor  man's 
child,  as  I  myself  agree;  but  my  father  was  deceived; 
he  thought  that  I  was  Matthew,  Mark;  and  I  have 
been  traveling  along  for  nearly  a  lifetime,  falsely  pre- 
tending to  own  two  patron  saints,  when  one  is  more 
than  I  deserve.  Without  an  explanation  it  looks  as  if  I 
had  purloined  an  extra  saint  for  double  patronage,  a 
piece  of  i*eligious  larceny  of  which  I  am  entirely  inno- 
cent. 

It  is  not  wonderful  that  a  boy  started  on  a  journey 
through  the  world  amid  contentions  about  the  date  of 
his  birth,  the  place  where  he  was  born,  and  destined 
never  to  know  his  own  name,  should  have  a  checkered 
career,  embarrassed  and  impeded  by  contradictions, 

doubts,  discords,  anej  defii^ls. 

* 

My  father  and  mother  were  both  religious  people, 
and  although  they  belonged  to  opposite  and  contra- 
dictory" sects, -th^t'cifcumstance  never,  made  any  dis- 
cord in  their  "dom.e'stic  lives.  Their  moral  doctrines 
were  exactly  alike,  and  they  traveled  along  together  in 
the  very  same  path  of  duty.  Their  1-ives  never  devi- 
ated a  hair's  breadth   from  the  straight  lines  of  truthj 


A  UTOBTOGRAPHY.  1 5 

honesty,  and  charity.  My  mother  was  as  divine  as 
mortals  ever  get  to  be,  and  her  faith  rose  above  all 
troubles.  My  father  was  less  courageous,  although  he 
was  as  brave  as  most  men  are ;  yet  he  could  not  bear 
adversity  with  the  same  calm,  patient,  uncomplaining 
spirit.  He  was  above  all  things  an  honest  man.  I  do 
not  think  that  any  combination  of  disasters  could  have 
swerved  him  from  his  integrity. 

In  lay  father's  code,  cheating  was  not  only  a  vice 
but  a  meanness.  Lying  was  not  only  an  act  of  sin  but 
an  act  of  cowardice  ;  cheating  and  lying  were  both  un- 
manly. I  believe  he  would  rather  have  died  than  give 
short  weight  or  measure,  or  falsely  represent  the  qual- 
ity or  value  of  an  article.  In  all  this  he  was  upheld 
and  supported  by  my  mother  as  by  some  superior 
moral  power. 

My*  father  was  doing  a  very  fair  business  in  a  mer- 
cantile way,  until  he  ventured  a  little  farther  than 
prudence  warranted.  This  brings  me  to  the  first 
thing  I  can  remember  in  this  world ;  and  the  sombre 
cloud  of  it  has  darkened  my  whole  life,  and  still  darkens 
it.  I  was  about  three  years  old  ;  it  was  -night  time  and 
I  was  sitting  on  the  bed.  I  remember  the  fire  in  the 
grate,  the  candle  on  the  table,  and  everything  in  the 
room.  Two  men  came  in ;  I  see  them  now  as  plainly 
as  I  saw  them  then,  two  stout  men  in  heavy  coats. 
They  read  a  paper  to  my  father,  and  my  mother  be- 
gan to  cry.  Then  my  father  put  on  his  overcoat,  and 
after  kissing  my  mother  and  me  walked  out  with  the 


1 6  WHEELS  A  RR  O  W. 

men.  Then  my  mother  flung  herself  weeping  on  the 
bed,  folded  me  in  her  arms  and  said,  **  They  have 
taken  papa  to  prison."  My  father  had  been  arrested 
for  debt. 

Next  morning  a  neighbor  came  with  a  wagon  and 
took  me  and  my  mother  to  see  my  father  in  prison. 
It  was  about  three  miles  away  on  the  other  side  of  the 
river.  This  is  my  first  recollection  of  London,  yet  I 
vividly  remember  it.  I  see  again  the  crowds  of  peo- 
ple, the  houses,  the  bridges,  the  river  j  and  most  viv- 
idly of  all,  the  obelisk  in  the  borough.  The  prison 
was  the  old  historic  Marshalsea,  damned  by  Charles 
Dickens  to  everlasting  fame  in  the  story  of  ^'  Little 
Dorritt."  I  remember  my  father  leading  me  by  the 
hand  up  the  long  stone-paved  courtyard  up  to  the 
'* Snuggery,"  where  he  ordered  some  refreshment  for 
my  mother  and  me. 

My  father  was  not  long  imprisoned  in  the  Mar- 
shalsea, and  he  would  not  have  been  there  at  all  ex- 
cept for  the  harshness  of  one  creditor.  All  the  others 
were  willing  to  grant  him  time  to  extricate  himself 
from  his  embarrassments,  but  this  one  man  was  inex- 
orable. My  mother  managed  to  borrow  money  enough 
to  pay  him  off,  and  the  other  creditors  were  made 
whole  out  of  the  assets  of  the  business.  My  parents 
sacrificed  everything  to  pay  every  man  his  claim 
to  the  last  penny,  and  then  began  the  world  again 
with  nothing  but  stout  hearts  and  willing  hands. 
The  consequence  of  all  this,  was  that  the  rest  of  my 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  17 

childhood  and  youth  was  spent  in  poverty,  and  a  life 
that  might  have  amounted  to  something  was  twisted 
out  of  all  proportion  to  its  original  destiny.  Many  a 
time  I  have  heard  my  father  and  mother  discussing 
the  oppressive  conduct  of  that  one  unrelenting  cred- 
itor, but  never  with  any  bitterness  or  hatred.  They 
seemed  to  regard  him  as  an  unwitting  agent  of  mis- 
fortune, as  a  cat,  or  a  dog,  or  a  gale  of  wind  might 
be  ;  and  sometimes  I  think  that  perhaps  this  is  the 
proper  way  to  think  of  all  our  enemies. 

Imprisonment  for  debt  no  longer  dishonors  the 
jurisprudence  of  England.  The  Marshalsea  is  gone. 
There  has  not  been  left  one  stone  upon  another  that 
has  not  been  thrown  down  ;  but  the  pain  of  its  tor- 
ments will  continue  from  generation  to  generation.  I 
saw  it  again  a  few  days  ago  in  a  ghostly  ghastly  sort 
of  way.  I  went  to  see  a  prisoner  in  the  county  jail  at 
Chicago,  and  there  happened  to  be  a  woman  at  the 
inside  gate  before  me.  When  the  turnkey  came  to 
the  gate,  she  inquired  for  somebody,  and  the  man  an- 
swered, "You'll  find  him  in  the  debtor's  depart- 
ment." Instantly  I  grew  sick  at  heart.  Here  was 
the  Marshalsea  again,  and  here  was  my  mother  asking 
for  my  father.  "Can  it  be  possible,"  I  said,  "that 
the  cruel  old  barbarism  of  imprisonment  for  debt, 
long  obsolete  in  England,  is  preserved  and  used  in 
Illinois  ?  "  And  a  few  weeks  ago,  sixty  ministers  of 
the  gospel  met  and  invited  all  the  world  to  come  to 


1 8  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

Chicago  in  1892,  ''to  an  exhibit  of  economic,  ethical, 
social,  and  religious  questions." 


My  parents  being  poor,  it  was  natural  that  I  should 
as  early  as  possible  help  them  to  earn  our  living.  At 
thirteen  I  was  lucky  enough  to  get  a  job  of  work  at  a 
dollar  and  a  quarter  a  week,  and  thirteen  hours 
a  day.  So  I  graduated  from  school  with  a  little  read- 
ing, writing,  and  ''ciphering,"  as  we  called  it  in  those 
days.  My  diploma  reached  scarcely  up  to  the  rule  of 
three ;  indeed  the  four  first  rules  were  all  of  the 
arithmetic  that  I  could  honestly  call  my  own.  But  a 
great  education  lies  in  the  knowledge  of  those  four 
elementary  rules.  I  need  not  say  how  hard,  grinding, 
and  premature  the  labor  in  the  days  of  my  boyhood 
was ;  the  memory  of  it  is  too  bitter ;  so  let  it  pass. 

At  the  time  I  speak  of,  the  lines  of  caste  were 
sharply  drawn  in  England,  and  I  was  duly  instructed 
to  "Fear  God,  Honor  the  King,  and  be  contented  in 
that  station  of  life  which  it  had  pleased  God  to  give 
me."  Whether  I  was  contented  or  not  made  little 
difference  in  the  situation,  for  I  soon  found  that  the 
laws  and  social  customs  of  England  were  ingen- 
iously contrived  so  as  to  prevent  any  escape  out  of 
my  allotted  station.  My  highest  ambition  was  to  rise 
from  the  grade  of  "  laborer  "to  that  of  "  mechanic," 
but  I  was  never  permitted  even  to  do  that.  In  my 
time  the  "  lower  orders  "  were  liberally  supplied  with 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  19 

precepts,  'but  although  we  could  not  get  out  of  our 
station,  we  were  not  contented  in  it. 

When  the  facts  of  our  lives  are  considered  it  will 
not  be  surprising  that  we  ceased  to  honor  the  King  or 
to  fear  God.  We  became  Chartists.  The  years  of 
my  youth  were  the  years  of  the  Chartist  movement  in 
England,  and  I  flung  myself  headlong  into  it.  Its 
high  purpose,  and  its  delirious  enthusiasm  attracted 
me.  Its  revolutionary  promises  fascinated  the  dis- 
franchised and  the  poor.  We  were  ready  to  storm 
the  Tower  of  London  as  the  Frenchmen  stormed  the 
Bastille.  I  made  imitation  Jacobin  speeches,  bom- 
bastic as  the  real  ones,  and  I  wrote  red  poetry  for  the 
Northern  Star,  the  fiery  organ  of  the  Chartist  party. 
These  things  illustrate  the  passions,  thoughts,  and 
manners  of  the  time  ;  and  their  lesson  applies  to  the 
social  conditions  prevailing  in  the  United  States  even 
at  the  present  day.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  Chartism 
here. 

The  inflamed  oratory  of  the  Chartists  was  usually 
illustrated  by  a  picturesque  contrast  between  the 
starved  and  degraded  condition  of  labor  in  England, 
and  its  dignified  and  prosperous  condition  in  the 
United  States.  The  contrast  was  greater  then  than  it 
is  now.  Labor  has  a  better  chance  to-day  in  Eng- 
land, and  a  poorer  chance  in  America  than  it  had 
then.  Still,  for  all  that,  this  country  offers  larger  op- 
portunities for  a  poor  man  than  he  can  find  in  Eng- 
land, or  anywhere  else  in  the  old  world.     Looking  at 


20  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

the  conditions  as  they  existed  then,  it  is  no  wonder 
that  America  was  the  land  of  promise  to  the  Irish 
peasant  and  the  English  laborer. 

One  Sunday  evening  I  was  at  a  coffeehouse  in 
London  where  the  Chartists  used  to  meet  and  study 
the  Northern  Star.  The  paper  for  that  week  con- 
tained a  copy  of  the  new  Constitution  of  Wisconsin, 
which  territory  was  then  making  preparations  for  ad- 
mission as  a  State  into  the  American  Union.  Dis- 
cussing it,  one  of  the  party  said,  *  Here  is  a  land 
where  the  Charter  is  already  the  law;  where  there  is 
plenty  of  work  and  good  wages  for  all ;  why  not 
go  there?'  To  me  the  question  sounded  logical ;  if 
the  Charter  was  not  to  be  obtained  in  England,  why 
not  go  to  America,  where  the  people  were  all  happy 
under  its  encouragement  and  protection  !  Shortly 
after  that,  I  was  on  board  an  emigrant  ship  a-sailing 
Westward,  Ho ! 


It  may  be  startling,  perhaps  incredible,  but  it  is 
nevertheless  true,  that  in  those  days,  a  trip  across  the 
Atlantic  in  an  English  emigrant  ship  was  more  dan- 
gerous to  life  than  to  stand  up  in  the  ranks  and  take 
a  soldier's  chances  at  Shiloh,  at  Chicamaugua,  or  at 
Gettysburg.  I  mean  this  to  be  taken  literally,  and 
without  any  grain  of  allowance  whatever.  The  loss  in 
killed  and  wounded  in  that  ship  in  which  I  sailed, 
was  greater  in  proportion  to  the  numbers  present  than 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  21 

the  loss  at  Waterloo,  at  Gravelotte,  or  in  the  battles 
around  Atlanta. 

It  was  the  year  of  the  great  exodus  from  Ireland, 
when  I  bought  a  steerage  ticket  on  board  the  pesti- 
lential Julius  Caesar,  a  worm-eaten  old  tub  bound  from 
Liverpool  to  Quebec.  She  was  in  the  lumber  trade, 
and  her  scheme  was  to  take  out  a  cargo  of  emigrants, 
and  bring  back  a  cargo  of  lumber.  For  that  purpose 
the  most  inferior  ships  that  sailed  the  seas  were  con- 
sidered good  enough.  There  was  great  profit  on  either 
cargo,  but  the  shipowners  were  more  careful  of  their 
boards  and  shingles  than  of  their  human  freight. 
Their  cruelty  to  passengers  would  in  these  days  make 
them  liable  to  the  penalties  of  manslaughter,  if  not 
murder.  It  was  murder  then,  but  the  laws  did  not 
punish  the  shipowners  for  the  crime.  The  crazy  old 
vessel  was  crowded  with  rats,  a  phenomenon  I  could 
not  understand.  What  pleasure  or  comfort  they  could 
find  in  that  ship  was  always  a  mystery  to  me,  not  to 
mention  the  imminent  danger  of  sinking,  which  they 
certainly  must  have  known. 

I  am  happy  to  know  that  the  story  of  that  voyage 
on  the  Julius  Caesar,  if  told  in  all  its  tragic  details, 
would  not  be  believed  in  this  generation — a  pleasant 
sign  that  humanity  has  made  a  great  advance  in  less 
than  fifty  years.  I  will  therefore  describe  some  only 
of  the  less  revolting  features  of  the  trip.  Although 
the  ship  was  not  fit  to  carry  passengers  at  all,  and  was 
not  large  enough  to  give  breathing  room  to  a  hundred 


2  2  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

persons,  four  hundred  men,  women,  and  children  were 
crowded  into  the  dark,  damp,  and  noisome  dungeon 
called  the  ''hold. "  In  mocking  irony  we  were  told  that 
the  law  would  not  permit  a  passenger  ship  to  take  any 
emigrants  who  were  not  healthy  and  sound  j  therefore 
we  were  all  subjected  to  a  medical  inspection.  Having 
received  a  clean  bill  of  health,  we  were  allowed  to  sail. 
This,  although  they  knew  that  scores  of  us  were  doomed 
to  die  before  the  voyage  ended.  With  criminal  de- 
liberation they  set  us  afloat,  and  consigned  us  to  typhus 
and  starvation. 

The  passenger  agents,  of  whom  we  bought  our 
tickets,  had  grim  fun  when  they  told  us  in  their  bluff, 
hearty,  sailor-like  way,  that  although  they  expected 
to  ''make  the  run"  in  twenty-one  days,  we  would 
better  out  of  abundant  caution,  lay  in  provisions  for  a 
month.  At  that  time  the  law  required  emigrant  ships 
to  carry  hard  bread  only,  and  this  on  board  the  Julius 
Caesar  was  black,  mouldy,  and  full  of  worms.  Even 
the  water  was  ioul.  Yet  when  our  own  provisions 
were  exhausted,  as  they  soon  were,  this  poisonous 
bread  was  all  the  food  we  had. 

Our  cargo,  for  it  would  be  gross  flattery  to  call  us 
passengers,  consisted  mostly  of  Irish  peasant  farmers 
and  their  families,  fleeing  from  the  famine  which  was 
then  ravaging  Ireland.  Four  hundred  healthy  men, 
women,  and  children,  were  consigned  to  the  firm  of 
Typhus,  Dysentery,  and  Co.  The  bill  of  lading  was 
commercially  and  scientifically  made  out.     The  ship's 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  23 

manifest  was  evidence  of  a  mercenary  contract  with 
Death.  It  was  not  until  the  eighth  day  out  that  any 
of  the  cargo  was  actually  delivered  according  to  the 
bargain. 

On  the  seventh  day  out,  we  met  a  vessel  going  in ;  and 
our  captain  roared  through  his  trumpet  to  the  other  ship, 
*' Report  the  Julius  Caesar  seven  days  out;  all  weU." 
The  mockery  of  that  ''AH  well"  rings  in  my  ears  to 
this  day.  On  the  next  night  the  first  of  our  company 
died,  a  stout  young  fellow  from  Skibbereen,  in  Ire- 
land. He  was  flung  into  the  sea  without  preparation 
or  prayer.  It  was  a  sultry  night,  the  moon  shone 
clear,  and  a  dead  calm  rested  on  the  sea.  Our  late 
comrade  refused  to  sink  as  he  should  have  done.  He 
seemed  inclined  to  stay  by  us,  and  it  was  several 
minutes  before  he  drifted  away.  Some  of  our  cargo 
said  that  the  spirit  of  our  friend  would  revisit  us  in  a 
storm.  They  said  he  was  a  Christian,  and  entitled  to 
a  Christian  burial ;  and  we  should  see  what  luck  would 
come  of  it,  this  burying  him  like  a  ''haythen." 

My  own  opinion  is  that  the  heathen-funeral,  if  it 
was  heathen,  had  nothing  to  do  with  it ;  but  at  all 
events,  a  storm  struck  us  next  night  such  fierce  and 
angry  blows  that  the  old  ship  groaned  like  a  human 
being  in  pain.  The  sails  were  torn,  and  the  masts 
broken,  while  the  sea  poured  in  from  above,  and  leaked 
in  from  below.  Our  provisions  were  damaged,  what 
little  there  was  of  them,  and  the  Typhus  poison  grew 
thicker  and  more  putrid   than  it  was  before.     Then  a 


24  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

woman  died,  and  then  a  child.  And  so  from  day  to 
day  the  revelry  of  death  went  on.  Some  days  death 
never  came  near  us ;  while  on  others  he  would  carry 
off  two,  or  three,  or  four.  There  is  no  drama  on  the 
stage  that  can  compare  in  pathos  with  this  fifty-days 
tragedy  enacted  on  the  Julius  Caesar. 

There  was  a  rugged  Englishman  on  board,  a  Cor- 
nish miner  on  his  way  to  Pennsylvania  to  work  in  the 
mines.  His  mother  was  with  him,  a  ministering  angel, 
always  comforting  the  sick.  She  took  the  fever  and 
died.  When  we  buried  her  in  the  sea  the  stalwart 
Englishman  went  mad. 

There  was  a  peasant  farmer  with  us  from  the  south 
of  Ireland,  accompanied  by  his  wife  and  three  children. 
They  were  kind,  respectable  people,  and  the  children 
were  good  looking  and  good.  One  of  them,  a  bright 
little  boy  about  seven  years  old,  was  my  particular 
playmate  and  pet.  One  day  the  fever  struck  him  and 
speedily  burned  him  to  death.  We  had  placed  him  on 
the  floor  underneath  the  hatchway  for  the  advantage 
of  such  fresh  air  as  might  thereby  be  obtained,  while 
his  father  and  mother  knelt  in  agony  beside  him,  watch- 
ing his  throbbing  pulses  beating  fainter  and  fainter, 
until  they  stopped  forever.  The  photograph  of  that 
scene  is  imprinted  on  my  memory  ineffaceable  ever- 
more. In  a  few  days  another  of  the  children  died, 
and  then  the  last  one.  When  we  landed  at  Grosse 
Isle,  I  saw  the  father  and  mother,  fever-smitten  and 
delirious,    swung   ashore   in  baskets.     Whether  they 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  25 

died  or  got  well  I  never  knew.  Let  us  hope  they  died. 
This  virulent  form  of  typhus  was  familiarly  known  as 
the  '^ship- fever,"  as  if  the  ships  were  in  some  way 
guilty  of  creating  it.  It  was  in  reality  the  shipowners* 
fever,  and  their  cruelty  and  avarice  produced  it. 

I  think  my  escape  from  the  fever  was  owing  to 
some  little  knowledge  I  possessed  of  the  fresh  air 
gospel.  Early  in  the  campaign,  I  deserted  the  ''hold  " 
and  took  refuge  with  half  a  dozen  others  in  the  long 
boat  which  was  swung  ''amidships"  in  the  open  air. 
It  was  not  a  luxurious  cabin,  being  filled  with  sails, 
ropes,  blocks,  tackle,  and  miscellaneous  rubbish  \  and 
although  these  made  a  hard  bed  to  lie  on,  and  we  were 
exposed  to  wind  and  rain,  it  was  better  than  sleeping 
in  the  fetid  atmosphere  below.  Although  fresh  air 
was  obtained  under  all  these  disadvantages,  I  believe 
that  in  my  case  it  operated  as  an  antidote  to  the  deadly 
ship-fever. 

With  impartial  favor  the  plague  stole  up  from 
"between  decks"  and  breathed  upon  the  sailors  in 
the  forecastle.  It  sneaked  into  the  cabin  and  smote 
the  captain  of  the  ship.  When  we  landed,  I  helped 
to  swing  him  ashore  in  a  basket.  He  was  helpless  as 
the  poorest  of  the  cargo  he  despised.  Whether  he 
lived  or  died  I  never  knew.  He  was  a  stern  man,  a 
good  sailor,  no  doubt,  but  without  any  sympathy  for 
us.  He  never  once  came  down  into  the  hold  to  look 
at  us,  nor  did  he  ever  speak  to  us  one  comforting 
word. 


26  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

For  fifty  days  fever  and  famine  held  riot  on  that 
ship.  On  our  fifty-first  day  out  from  Liverpool,  we 
cast  anchor  in  the  St.  Lawrence  river,  and  landed  at 
Grosse  Isle.  Sixty-two  of  our  number  had  died  on  the 
voyage,  and  were  buried  in  the  sea.  It  was  estimated 
that  as  many  more  died  of  the  fever  after  landing.  I 
have  no  doubt  the  number  was  larger  than  that,  be- 
cause not  more  than  twenty  of  our  crew  and  cargo 
were  free  from  fever  or  disentery  when  we  landed  at 
Grosse  Isle.  This  was  one  of  the  tragedies  attendant 
on  the  great  exodus  from  Ireland.  No  regiment  in  the 
civil  war  could  show  such  a  list  of  killed  and  wounded 
in  any  battle,  or  in  any  two  or  three  battles,  as  our 
little  regiment  could  show  as  the  result  of  a  fifty-days 
campaign  on  board  the  Julius  Caesar.  Through  such 
perils  the  emigrant  had  to  pass  who  sought  the  prom- 
ised land  by  means  of  an  English  emigrant  ship  from 
the  British  Islands  forty-three  years  ago. 

What  beneficent  changes  have  come  to  men  since 
then  !  Now  the  steerage  passenger  comes  over  in  a 
week  or  ten  days  ;  in  a  big  steamship,  and  spends  his 
time  grumbling  at  the  bread  and  butter,  and  beef ;  at 
the  vegetables  and  soup ;  at  the  rice,  tea,  coffee, 
sugar,  and  soap  ;  and  especially  at  the  canned  fruit. 
Now  the  steerage  passenger  criticises  the  poultry  and 
the  pudding  ;  and  frequently  complains  that  iced 
cream  and  strawberries  are  not  provided  in  the 
**menu." 

A  few  years  ago  I  returned  to  England  in  a  float- 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  27 

ing  palace,  but  not  in  the  steerage  this  time.  I  oc- 
casionally visited  the  steerage  in  an  inquisitive  way, 
where  I  heard  the  grumbling,  and  connived  at  it,  but 
all  the  time  I  was  thinking  of  the  Julius  Caesar.  Al- 
though the  doctors  assert  that  grumbling  is  injurious 
to  health,  and  interferes  with  the  digestive  process, 
there  were  no  deaths  on  the  voyage,  and  no  illness, 
except  sea-sickness,  which,  it  is  only  fair  to  say,  ap- 
peared to  be  quite  impartial  between  the  steerage  and 
the  cabin.  The  contrast  between  the  steerage  fare  of 
the  Devonia  and  that  of  the  Julius  Caesar  measures 
the  increase  of  material  comforts  made  in  the  lifetime 
of  one  man.  A  similar  advance  has  been  made  in 
other  directions,  but  it  is  to  be  deplored  that  the  poor 
man  has  not  in  all  other  cases  received  such  a  propor- 
tion of  it  as  he  gets  on  an  emigrant  ship. 

* 

Grosse  Isle  was  the  quarantine  ground  below  Que- 
bec. Here  we  got  plenty  to  eat,  and  here  I  got  my 
first  job  as  a  roustabout.  A  Frenchman  came  down 
with  a  schooner  laden  with  lumber,  to  be  used  in 
building  sheds  for  the  sick.  He  hired  me  and  a 
couple  of  others  to  help  him  unload  the  schooner,  and 
he  paid  us  five  dollars  for  the  job.  After  staying  on 
the  island  for  several  days  where  the  fever-stricken 
were  sifted  out  and  sent  to  the  sheds,  the  rest  of  us 
were  loaded  on  to  a  steamboat  and  taken  to  Quebec, 
but  the  city  authorities  would  not  permit  us  to  land. 
In    self-defense    they    were    compelled   to    reject   us. 


28  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

Quebec  was  crowded  with  plague-stricken  emigrants, 
and  the  fever  was  invading  the  homes  of  the  citizens. 
They  ordered  us  to  ''move  on."  The  steamboat, 
weary  of  us,  hurried  up  to  Montreal  and  dumped  us 
on  to  the  levee.  Had  they  rung  the  church  bells  in 
my  honor,  the  salutation  would  not  have  been  more 
welcome  than  this  which  I  received,  "Do  you  want  a 
job  of  work?"  The  strange  question  compensated  me 
for  all  I  had  undergone ;  it  was  an  invitation  to  imme- 
diate independence. 

This  was  a  strange  experience  to  me.  Never  be- 
fore had  any  man  done  me  the  honor  to  solicit  my 
services,  and  the  new  world  already  looked  bright  and 
beautiful.  Men  were  actually  walking  about  the  levee 
inviting  the  newly  come  emigrants  to  work.  I  saw  in 
a  moment  that  it  was  only  a  question  of  health  and 
strength  with  me,  and  that  I  need  not  be  hungry  in 
America.  I  immediately  entered  into  negotiations 
with  the  man  who  had  given  me  such  a  cheery  wel- 
come to  the  new  world,  and  the  following  dialogue  was 
had:  What  kind  of  work  is  it?  Railroad?  Where? 
Longueil!  Wages?  Dollar  a  day!  When?  To-morrow! 
Put  my  name  down  for  a  chance,  and  let  us  go.  He  hired 
a  few  others  of  our  company,  and  that  evening  we 
crossed  over  on  the  ferry  boat  to  Longueil. 

Next  morning  I  went  to  work.  The  tools  and  im- 
plements of  my  profession  were  a  wheelbarrow,  pick- 
axe, and  shovel.  These  the  boss  generously  furnished 
out  of  his  own   capital.     Some  of  the  virus  of  the 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  29 

Julius  Caesar  must  have  been  lurking  in  our  blood  or 
in  our  clothes,  for  the  fever  accompanied  us  over  the 
river,  and  in  a  few  days  five  of  our  men  were  stricken 
down,  but  only  two  of  them  died  ;  the  others  recovered. 
I  grew  stronger  all  the  time,  and  kept  my  job  until 
the  Canadian  winter  made  the  ground  like  stone,  and 
I  could  dig  no  more.  The  lesson  of  all  this  is  that 
there  was  a  time  in  America  when  men  did  not  have 
to  go  begging  for  work,  because  work  went  begging 
for  them. 

This  demand  was  not  confined  to  the  lower  forms 
of  labor ;  it  was  eager  for  mechanics,  clerks,  teachers, 
and  professional  men.  The  range  of  employment  was 
almost  unlimited.  Having  saved  a  little  money,  I 
started  on  foot  for  Vermont,  but  on  the  road  near 
Granby  in  Canada,  I  was  waylaid  by  a  farmer  who 
wanted  me  to  work  for  him.  He  offered  me  seven 
dollars  a  month  and  board,  so  I  took  the  job.  Though 
not  great  wages,  it  was  more  than  I  was  worth.  Un- 
fortunately I  was*  incompetent  for  the  business,  and  I 
soon  discovered  that  farm  labor  is  "skilled  labor," 
and  that  it  requires  a  special  training  and  talent. 

As  soon  as  I  went  to  work  I  found  that  I  could  not 
even  learn  the  trade.  I  could  not  learn  to  milk,  to 
chop,  to  pitch  hay,  or  to  do  anything  else.  My  em- 
ployer was  a  patient,  good-natured  man,  and  instead 
of  scolding  me,  he  laughed  at  my  awkwardness.  At 
last  he  saw  that  my  case  was  hopeless,  but  instead  of 
sending  me  away,  he  said,  ''Here,  it's  no  use  for  you 


30  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

to  try  farming,  but  I  think  I  can  get  you  a  job  at 
school-teaching.  This  will  be  easier  for  you,  and  it 
will  pay  better  wages  too."  It  was  now  my  turn  to 
laugh  at  him.  I  told  him  that  I  had  no  learning,  and 
that  I  could  not  pretend  to  teach  others  until  I  had 
some  education  of  my  own. 

The  state  of  the  case  was  this :  I  had  always  been 
a  diligent  reader,  and  my  conversation  had  such  an 
intelligent  appearance  that  people  were  deceived  by 
it;  and  they  supposed  I  must  have  had  some  educa- 
tion. Also,  I  could  write  a  good  hand,  and  this  helped 
the  delusion.  I  could  easily  pass  an  examination  in 
reading  and  writing,  but  I  was  deficient  in  arithmetic. 
Of  grammar  I  knew  nothing  at  all.  ''No  matter," 
said  my  employer,  ''you  know  enough  to  teach  our 
district  school,  and  I  will  help  you  to  get  it."  He 
kept  his  word,  and  I  got  the  school.  To  my  surprise 
I  gave  satisfaction,  and  won  the  reputation  of  knowing 
a  great  deal  more  than  I  did.  I  was  treated  with  un- 
bounded hospitality.  Among  the  happiest  portions 
of  my  life  was  the  winter  when  I  taught  school  and 
"boarded  round  "  among  the  hospitable  settlers  in  the 
backwoods  of  Canada. 

And  now  for  the  first  time  I  tasted  the  luxuries  of 
an  intellectual  life.  My  work  was  light,  and  improv- 
ing to  the  mind.  It  was  more  educational  to  me  than 
to  the  pupils,  and  the  hours  were  only  from  nine  to  four. 
My  evenings  were  my  own,  and  I  made  the  most  of 
them.     That  winter    I   mastered  the   arithmetic    and 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY,  31 

made  myself  entirely  familiar  with  Smith's  grammar, 
which  luckily  was  a  very  easy  one,  written  in  the  form 
of  question  and  answer. 

My  term  having  expired,  I  resumed  the  march  to 
Boston.  My  exalted  position  at  Granby  had  awakened 
within  me  a  new  ambition,  and  I  felt  the  throbbings 
of  a  higher  aspiration.  I  had  been  advised  at  Granby 
by  a  friendly  patron  to  study  the  law.  At  first  I  thought 
he  was  jesting,  but  he  was  entirely  serious,  and  he 
assured  me  that  the  professions  in  America  were  not 
as  in  England,  the  exclusive  property  of  the  rich.  The 
dream  was  a  fascination,  for  I  was  anxious  to  escape 
the  drudgery  of  the  shovel  and  the  wheelbarrow. 

School-teaching  was  over  until  the  following  win- 
ter, so  I  had  to  go  back  to  my  old  profession.  With 
my  bundle  swung  across  my  shoulder,  I  traveled  buoy- 
antly along  at  the  rate  of  twenty  miles  a  day,  and  the 
journey  was  luxurious.  There  was  no  hardship  in  it. 
To  a  fellow  who  had  been  cooped  up  most  of  his  life 
within  the  walls  of  London,  the  splendid  scenery  of 
a  world  entirely  new  to  him  was  a  joyous  excitement 
almost  worth  a  journey  in  the  Julius  Caesar.  It  was  also 
a  valuable  bit  of  education. 

I  was  rolling  in  opulence,  for  I  had  more  than 
twenty  dollars  in  my  pocket  j  and  my  meals  at  the  farm 
houses  never  cost  me  more  than  fifteen  cents.  Rail- 
road building  was  in  progress  near  the  town  of  Wind- 
sor, and  there  I  got  a  job  ;  once  more  at  a  dollar  a  day; 
but  school-teaching  had  lifted  my  soul  above  the  trade 


32  WHEELBARROW. 

of  wheeling  and  shoveling.  I  had  grown  fastidious, 
and  had  no  relish  for  the  manners  and  conversation  of 
the  company  at  the  shanty  where  I  lived.  So  after 
loading  my  exchequer  with  some  dollars  earned  on 
the  railroad,  I  took  a  walk  to  Boston. 

In  those  days  it  was  easy  to  get  work  in  Boston, 
and  I  soon  found  employment  at  a  pork  warehouse, 
again  at  a  dollar  a  day.  It  was  better  than  dig- 
ging on  the  railroad,  for  I  lost  no  time  on  account  of 
rainy  weather.  The  work  was  hard  enough  as  any 
man  can  testify  who  has  handled  barrels  of  pork,  but 
it  was  not  continuous,  like  shoveling  and  wheeling  on 
the  railroad.  There  was  a  good  deal  to  do  about  the 
warehouse  that  was  easy  and  light.  The  skies  were 
getting  brighter  and  brighter  every  day. 

One  day  I  happened  to  pass  a  building  where  the 
American  flag  was  flying,  and  the  windows  were  or- 
namented with  flaming  placards,  inviting  all  patriotic 
young  men  of  spirit  to  join  the  army  for  the  conquest 
of  Mexico.  I  have  never  been  able  to  explain  either 
to  myself  or  others  why  I  wanted  to  conquer  Mexico, 
but  here  was  excitement,  adventure,  and  foreign  travel, 
all  to  be  had  for  nothing.  I  put  my  name  down  on 
the  list  of  conquerors  and  before  night  I  was  a  ^'  boy 
in  blue."  I  was  then  shipped  off  to  Governor's  Island, 
New  York ;  and  from  there  to  Mexico,  in  the  exalted 
rank  of  private  in  the  2nd,  U.  S.  Artillery. 

Before  I  had  been  a  soldier  two  hours,  my  enthu- 
siasm for  conquering  people  received  a  shock  from 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  33 

which  it  has  never  since  entirely  recovered.  I  happened 
to  pick  up  a  newspaper  which  contained  a  sarcastic 
poem  about  the  war.  It  was  written  by  one  Hosea 
Bigelow,  a  poet  of  whom  then  I  had  never  heard,  but 
of  whom  I  am  happy  to  say  I  have  heard  a  good  deal 
since.  One  verse  oppressed  me  like  a  nightmare,  and 
it  weighs  on  my  conscience  still.     This  was  the  verse  : 

"  If  you  take  a  sword  and  dror  it, 
And  should  stick  a  feller  thro' ; 
Guv'ment  aint  to  answer  for  it, 
God  will  send  the  bill  to  you." 

I  believe  the  sentiment  of  that  verse  is  based  on 
moral  truth,  but  I  also  believe  that  when  a  set  of  men 
called  ''Government"  plunge  nations  into  war,  they 
will  have  to  answer  for  it,  and  that  God  will  send  the 
bill  to  them. 

I  was  rather  lucky  as  a  soldier,  for  in  a  few  weeks 
I  was  appointed  sergeant,  and  shortly  afterwards  First 
sergeant  of  my  company.  Through  military  associa- 
tion I  became  well  acquainted  with  many  of  the  men 
who  afterward  became  famous  as  generals  fighting 
against  each  other  in  the  civil  war.  Of  course,  I  knew 
nothing  at  that  time  of  the  ethics  or  the  politics  of  the 
war  with  Mexico ;  but  afterwards,  when  I  came  to 
study  the  genius  and  the  inspiration  of  it,  I  thought  it 
nothing  to  be  proud  of ;  unless  we  regard  the  acquisi- 
tion of  California  and  New  Mexico  as  a  great  achiev- 
ment.  This  must  be  considered  a  valuable  result,  if 
we  leave  out  of  the  estimate  the  moral  quality  of  the 
means  by  which  it  was  obtained. 


34  WHEELBARROW. 

After  my  discharge  from  the  army  I  worked  in 
different  places  and  at  various  kinds  of  labor.  In  the 
winter  I  taught  school.  All  my  spare  time  and  all 
my  evenings  were  spent  in  studying  law,  and  learn- 
ing the  Latin  language  sufficiently  to  understand  the 
law  Latin,  which  I  found  abounded  in  the  books. 
Part  of  the  time  I  worked  at  Norfolk,  Virginia,  and 
there  I  found  a  kind  preceptor  who  lent  me  books, 
and  gave  me  systematic  instruction  of  great  value. 

From  Norfolk  I  went  to  Richmond,  and  might 
have  succeeded  very  well  there,  but  for  an  imprudent 
habit  of  criticising  slavery.  When  the  Winston  family 
was  murdered  by  a  female  slave,  a  panic  struck  the 
town  of  Richmond,  for  the  people  thought  it  the  signal 
for  a  negro  insurrection,  and  a  search  for  Abolitionists 
was  immediately  organized  ;  something  like  a  wolf- 
hunt.  I  was  not  curious  to  see  the  end  of  it,  and  that 
night  found  me  in  Fredericksburg.  The  next  morning 
I  was  in  Washington.  From  there  I  started  westward, 
and  did  not  stop  until  I  was  landed  safely  on  the  free 
soil  of  the  western  prairies. 

Railroad  building  had  not  yet  begun  in  my  locality, 
so  I  got  a  job  of  work  in  a  brick-yard.  Brick-yard  work 
is  very  hard  ;  much  harder  than  hod-carrying.  The 
hardest  part  of  hod-carrying  is  going  up  the  ladder, 
but  coming  down  is  easy  enough,  and  the  time  spent 
in  carefully  placing  the  bricks  in  the  hod  is  a  period  of 
comparative  rest,  also  after  dumping  mortar  a  good 
deal  of  time  can  be  judiciously  wasted  in' scraping  out 


A  UTOBIOGRAPHY.  35 

the  hod,  and  sprinkling  the  inside  of  it  with  sand. 
Brick-yard  labor  is  almost  continuous ;  there  is  much 
bending  of  the  back,  while  the  sodden  clay  is  perverse, 
inelastic,  heavy,  and  dull. 

Brick-making  ends  with  the  early  frost,  so  in  the 
winter  I  taught  school  again.  I  continued  the  study 
of  the  law,  and  was  fortunate  enough  to  find  a  gene- 
rous lawyer  who  lent  me  books,  directed  rriy  reading, 
and  gave  me  an  examination  every  Saturday.  In  the 
following  spring  I  was  admitted  to  the  bar,  after  pass- 
ing an  unusually  severe  examination,  caused  by  pre- 
judice of  the  bar  against  the  admission  of  a  brick-yard 
laborer. 

Having  obtained  my  diploma  as  a  lawyer,  I  went 
back  to  work  in  the  brick-yard,  that  I  might  earn 
money  enough  to  take  me  to  some  other  part  of  the 
state, .  and  buy  me  a  few  books  on  which  to  build  a 
new  profession.  I  was  great  sport  for  the  other  fel- 
lows in  the  brick-yard,  and  they  always  called  me 
** Counselor."  With  grave  pleasantry  the  boss  would 
say:  *'Will  the  learned  counsel  on  the  other  side 
bring  more  clay?"  ''Will  my  learned  friend  spread 
those  bricks  a  little  faster."  ''  If  the  counsel  desires 
more  time  he  must  make  the  proper  affidavit."  ''The 
demurrer  is  overruled,"  with  much  other  brick-yard 
humor  of  a  similar  kind.  I  enjoyed  this  banter  more 
than  they  did,  because  it  was  based  on  fact,  and  was 
a  prophecy  of  better  times  for  me. 

Brick-making  for  that  year  ceased  in  the  fall,  and 


36  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

as  I  well  knew  it  would  be  useless  to  open  a  law  office 
among  people  who  had  seen  me  working  in  a  brick- 
yard, I  walked  off  to  another  part  of  the  state,  a  hun- 
dred miles  away,  and  began  to  practice  law.  I  got 
along  very  well,  and  in  about  a  year  official  honors 
began  to  crowd  upon  me.  I  was  nominated  for  the 
office  of  district  attorney,  but  this  nomination  I  de- 
clined. I  did  not  think  myself  competent  for  such  a 
position,  and  besides  I  did  not  like  to  begin  my  pro- 
fessional career  in  the  character  of  an  office-hunter; 
but  in  spite  of  that,  I  was  elected.  However,  I  was 
firm  in  my  resolution,  and  refused  to  qualify. 

My  objection  to  office  holding  did  not  last  long, 
and  in  the  fall  of  1857,  I  was  nominated  on  the  repub- 
lican ticket  for  the  legislature.  There  were  three 
counties  in  the  district  and  the  pohtical  battle  was 
fought  all  over  them.  After  a  bitter  contest  I  was 
elected;  and  in  the  following  January  I  took  my  seat 
as  a  member  of  the  House. 

I  was  now  an  American  statesman,  and  I  played 
the  part  with  perfect  satisfaction  to  myself.  The 
office  yielded  glory  and  renown,  but  not  much  money; 
for  in  those  days  the  wages  for  a  statesman  was  only 
three  dollars  a  day.  This  was  better  pay  than  T  got 
on  the  railroad,  or  in  the  brick-yard,  while  the  work 
was  easier  and  more  genteel.  Besides,  we  could  ad- 
journ whenever  we  pleased,  which  was  a  great  im- 
provement on  the  old  system.  In  the  brick-yard,  and 
on  the  railroad,  a  motion  to  adjourn  was  always  ''out 


A  UTOBIOGRAPHY. 


37 


of  order."  I  acquitted  myself  as  a  statesman  about 
as  well  as  the  rest  of  them,  and  my  experience  in  the 
legislature  enlarged  the  circle  of  my  acquaintance 
with  prominent  men,  which  was  of  great  benefit  to  me 
in  a  professional  way. 

There  were  some  comical  scenes  in  that  legislature, 
and  I  herewith  present  a  couple  of  specimens  for  the 
information  and  instruction  of  the  reader.  The  great 
commercial  panic  occurred  in  1857,  and  our  chief 
statesmanship  consisted  in  passing  laws  to  hinder  and 
prevent  the  collection  of  debts,  especially  debts  due 
to  bloated  capitalists  and  wholesale  merchants  living 
outside  the  state.  We  needed  all  our  money  for  home 
consumption,  and  we  did  not  intend  that  our  people 
should  waste  it  in  paying  foreign  debts,  contracted 
with  the  people  of  other  states.  We  spent  our  time 
in  debating  stay  laws,  appraisement  laws,  valuation 
laws,  laws  giving  defendants  in  civil  suits  the  right  to 
a  continuance  for  two  or  three  terms  of  court,  and 
many  similar  devices.  There  was  an  old  pioneer 
farmer  there  who  went  by  the  name  of  Blackhawk, 
and  one  day  when  some  of  this  generous  legislation 
was  under  debate,  he  rose  in  his  place  and  said : 
*'Mr.  Speaker!  I  would  like  to  ax  a  question.  If 
this  yar  bill  passes,  will  it  be  a  criminal  offense  for  a 
man  to  pay  his  honest  debts  if  he  has  a  mind  to  ?  " 
The  Speaker  had  his  doubts,  and  the  question  was 
never  answered. 

An  active  and  very  influential  member  of  the  House 


38  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

was  Tom  Drummond,  a  bright  young  fellow  from 
Benton  County.  He  was  killed  in  the  war,  fighting 
bravely  under  Sheridan  at  the  battle  of  Five  Forks. 
Tom  was  a  fine  singer,  and  one  day,  after  he  had 
spent  the  previous  night  at  a  convivial  gathering,  he 
got  sleepy,  and  at  last,  dropping  his  head  upon  his 
desk,  took  a  nap.  The  House  went  on  with  its  busi- 
ness and  took  no  notice  of  Tom.  Waking  up  in  the 
afternoon,  he  thought  he  was  still  at  the  jollification, 
and  immediately  began  to  sing  in  a  clear  loud  voice 
the  melody  of  *'Auld  Lang  Syne."  The  members 
looked  at  each  other  in  amazement,  and  at  last  they 
gazed  at  the  Speaker,  expecting  that  he  would  order 
the  Sergeant-at-arms  to  arrest  the  Honorable  member 
for  his  unparalleled  breach  of  decorum.  Instead  of 
that  the  Speaker  listened  for  a  moment,  and  then 
bringing  his  gavel  down  heavily  upon  his  desk,  he 
shouted  :   ''The  House  will  join  in  the  chorus." 

When  my  legal  career  appeared  most  promising, 
it  was  rudely  interrupted  by  the  outbreak  of  the  war. 
The  attack  on  Fort  Sumter  was  Treason's  defiance  to 
all  free  government,  a  challenge  inviting  Liberty  to 
defend  itself  in  battle.  I  enlisted  for  the  war.  Our  com- 
pany was  made  up  of  squads  from  different  counties, 
and  when  we  all  got  together  an  election  for  officers 
was  held.  I  had  the  good  luck  to  be  chosen  captain 
of  the  company.  I  say  good  luck,  although  I  am  well 
aware  that  among  disinterested  patriots  the  matter 
of  rank  is  not  worthy  of  consideration,  yet  I  frankly 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  :;9 

confess  that  I  would  rather  be  a  captain  patriot,  than 
a  corporal  patriot.  I  confidentially  admit  that  I  would 
rather  get  a  hundred  dollars  a  month  than  thirteen 
dollars,  and  I  would  rather  command  than  be  com- 
manded. 

I  served  as  a  captain  for  fifteen  months,  first  in 
the  Missouri  campaign  of  1861,  and  afterwards  in  the 
army  of  the  Tennessee.  In  August,  1862,  I  got  a  sudden 
jump  to  the  grade  of  Lieut.  Colonel  of  my  regiment, 
and  I  was  afterwards  appointed  Colonel  of  Cavalry. 
Towards  the  close  of  the  war  I  was  promoted  to  the 
riiuk  of  Brigadier  General,  and  commanded  a  cavalry 
brigade.  As  mere  incidents  in  my  own  personal  career 
these  matters  have  no  interest  for  others,  and  I  only 
mention  them  to  illustrate  the  variety  of  opportunities 
which  existed  in  America  at  that  time,  and  the  chances 
offered  the  "lower  orders  "  for  promotion  to  a  higher 
social  plane.  Mine  was  not  a  singular  instance.  Such 
examples  were  numerous  in  the  American  army. 

And  the  same  social  phenomena  were  apparent  in 
civil  affairs  also.  When  I  came  home  at  the  close  of 
the  war,  I  was  immediately  elected  to  the  office  of 
District  Attorney,  without  any  effort  of  mine,  and 
when  General  Grant  became  president,  he  appointed 
me  Collector  of  Internal  Revenue,  also  without  any 
solicitation  from  me.  I  held  that  office  during  the 
whole  of  his  administration,  and  although  the  collection 
of  millions  of  dollars  is  a  grave  responsibility  which 
makes  a   man  tumble  and  toss  about  in   his  bed  at 


40  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

night,  I  met  with  no  disaster  and  no  loss.  Of  course 
there  was  in  all  this,  besides  my  effort  to  perform  my 
duty,  an  element  of  luck,  and  many  better  men  than 
I  did  not  have  the  same  good  fortune. 

Although  the  field  of  opportunities  for  the  poor  is 
yet  very  broad  in  America,  it  is  becoming  more  con- 
tracted as  wealth  and  population  grow.  The  develop- 
ment of  caste  and  class  among  us  is  much  to  be 
deplored.  The  tendency  of  our  legislation  is  to  clas- 
sify the  people,  and  to  abridge  the  freedom  of  enter- 
prise based  on  labor  alone.  Special  interests  are 
rapidly  becoming  the  special  concern  of  statesmanship. 
With  natural  resources  unparalleled  and  inexhaustible, 
almost  at  the  beginning  of  our  national  career,  we  are 
afflicted  with  labor  agitations  angry  and  inflamed ; 
with  strikes,  lockouts,  boycotts,  and  ominous  premo- 
nition of  a  social  war.  Schemes  of  political  economy, 
partial  and  unjust,  advocated  by  one  class,  are  met  by 
schemes  of  social  economy,  wild  and  fantastical,  advo- 
cated by  the  other.  We  are  drifting  to  the  policy  of 
protection  for  the  rich,  and  correction  for  the  poor. 
We  must  spend  more  money  for  the  education  of  the 
people,  and  less  for  their  punishment.  And  while  we 
are  about  it,  let  us  not  forget  the  importance  of 
schools  for  the  education  of  the  rich. 

*  * 

Coming  out  of  the  labor  struggles  of  my  childhood, 

youth,    and   early   manhood,    covered   all   over   with 

bruises  and  scars,    and   with  some  wounds  that  will 


AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  41 

never  be  healed  either  in  this  world  or  in  the  world  to 
come,  I  may  have  written  some  words  in  bitterness, 
but  I  do  not  wish  to  antagonize  classes,  nor  to  excite 
animosity  and  revenge.  I  desire  to  harmonize  all  the 
orders  of  society  on  the  broad  platform  of  mutual 
charity  and  justice.  I  have  had  no  other  object  in 
writing  these  essays. 


43 


SIGNING  THE  DOCUMENT. 


Few  men  of  this  generation  understand  the  mean- 
ing of  those  words,  and  yet  the  time  was  when  they 
menaced  the  liberty  of  all  the  workingmen  of  England, 
and  the  time  has  now  come  when  they  threaten  the 
independence  of  all  the  laborers  of  America. 

About  fifty-five  years  ago  the  workingmen  of  Eng- 
land combined  for  their  own  welfare  and  protection  into 
a  trades-union  organization,  something  like  the  Trades 
Assembly  and  the  Knights  of  Labor  here.  So  for- 
midable did  this  organization  become  that  the  govern- 
ment resolved  to  stamp  it  out,  and  conspiracy  laws 
were  passed  against  it.  It's  too  long  a  story  to  tell 
now,  but  after  a  great  deal  of  fining  and  imprisoning 
and  transporting,  the  contest  ended  in  something  like 
a  drawn  battle — the  trades-unions  were  not  entirely 
conquered,  nor  were  they  entirely  successful.  Other 
societies  came  into  existence,  having  other  methods  of 
assisting  labor,  and  the  trades-unions  melted  into  them. 
What  remained  of  them  ceased  to  be  very  dangerous, 
and  was  ''let  alone." 

As  a  protection  to  themselves  against  the  trades- 
unions,  the  employers  of  labor,  or  the  ''masters,"  as 
they  were  termed  in  England — and  we  might  as  well 
adopt  that  name  here,  now  that  we  have  "  signed  the 
document" — the  masters  formed  themselves  into  a 
counter  organization,  and  the  first  thing  they  did  was 
to  prepare  an  agreement  for  all  workingmen  to  sign. 


44 


WHEELBARRO  W. 


This  was  a  pledge  not  to  join  the  trades-unions,  or  any 
similar  society.  The  masters,  on  their  part,  pledged 
themselves  not  to  employ  any  mechanic,  artisan,  clerk, 
or  laborer  who  refused  to  sign  this  document,  and  they 
agreed  to  discharge  all  workingmen  now  in  their  ser- 
vice who  should  also  decline  to  do  so.  This  paper  was 
something  like  the  one  submitted  by  the  telegraph 
companies  to  the  striking  operators  four  or  five  years 
ago. 

The  ''document"  meant  servitude  and  subjection. 
It  was  so  translated  by  the  workingmen.  They  refused 
to  sign  it,  and  were  discharged  by  thousands  from  their 
various  employments.  Popular  sympathy  at  once 
rallied  to  the  side  of  labor,  and  so  menacing  became 
the  discontent,  that  the  government  was  alarmed. 
Songs  containing  the  watchwords  of  the  Unions  were 
sung  in  the  streets,  and  the  agitation  became  danger- 
ous. A  remarkable  evidence  of  the  stubborn  freedom 
of  the  English  was  that  the  men  most  resolute  in  re- 
fusing to  sign  the  document  were  not  the  trades-union- 
ists, but  men  who  had  never  joined  the  unions,  but 
had  always  bitterly  opposed  them.  They  said  they 
could  not  sign  away  their  own  liberties,  nor  the  liber- 
ties of  their  children,  and  they  declined  to  give  the 
''masters  "  any  other  reason  for  declining  to  sign. 

Of  course,  some  "signed  the  document,"  and  re- 
tained their  situations,  but  those  unfortunate  men  were 
always  held  as  tainted  by  a  moral  leprosy.  Twenty  years 
afterward,  and  so  long  as  that  generation  remained,  it 
blasted  a  man  like  a  crime  to  say  of  him,  "  He  signed 
the  document"  ;  indeed,  men  took  more  pains  to  deny 
this  accusation  than  to  deny  a  charge  of  burglary. 
Sometimes  a  man  would  work  in  a  shop  among  a 
hundred  men,  maybe  for  a  year  or  more,  when  some 


SIGNING  THE  DOCUMENT.  45 

craftsman  would  come  along  who  knew  him  long  ago, 
and  would  tell  that  he  had  ''signed  the  document." 
From  that  time  his  life  would  be  uncomfortable  in  that 
shop.  Although  no  harm  would  be  done  him,  he  felt 
that  his  shopmates  all  regarded  him  as  unsound  in 
moral  fiber,  and  no  true  Englishman.  Boys  at  school 
could  not  insult  one  another  more  effectually  than  to 
say,  ''His  father  signed  the  document. "  At  our  school 
more  fights  grew  out  of  this  insult  than  out  of  all  other 
causes  put  together. 

And  this  was  the  end  of  the  telegraph  strike.  The 
operators  all  '*  signed  the  document,"  and  went  back 
to  their  work.  Their  offer  to  surrender  would  not  be 
accepted  unless  accompanied  by  a  written  abdication 
of  their  independence.  This  abdication  involved  im- 
portant consequences  not  only  to  themselves,  but  also 
to  all  wage- workers  of  every  degree.  Not  only  did  they 
sign  away  their  own  birthright  but  that  of  the  whole 
great  brotherhood  of  labor.  That  other  masters  would 
exact  the  same  pledge  was  certain,  and  quietly  but 
unrelentingly  this  encroachment  upon  liberty  has  been 
advancing.  Labor  was  deprived  of  its  dignity  and 
subjugated,  while  monopoly  and  privilege  were  corre- 
spondingly strengthened  and  exalted  when  the  tele- 
graph operators  "signed  the  document." 

A  few  months  ago  a  young  man  of  my  acquaint- 
ance, in  the  employ  of  a  very  powerful  and  wealthy 
corporation  of  Chicago,  said  to  me  in  a  tone  of  sadness 
and  humiliation,  "Well !  I  have  signed  the  document. 
The  firm  required  it  and  we  all  did  it."  I  asked  him 
if  there  were  no  rebels  who  refused.  "No,"  he  said, 
"not  one.  What  could  we  do?  Its  easy  to  talk  and 
moralize  about  these  things,  but  its  not  so  easy  to  get 
into  a  job  as  it  is  to  get  out  of  it.     My  work  is  hard, 


46  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

but  the  wages  is  fair,  and  if  my  job  were  advertised  in 
the  papers  to-night  as  vacant,  there  would  be  fifty  men 
after  it  before  nine  o'clock  to-morrow  morning ;  fifty 
men  just  as  good  as  I  am.  Who  of  the  million  men  in 
Chicago  would  care  a  cent  about  me,  or  sympathize 
with  me  for  quitting  my  job  'on  principle'?  Not 
one  !  They  would  all  call  me  a  fool.  Knowing  this,  I 
signed  the  document." 

I  had  no  reproaches  to  make  ;  the  philosophy  of  his 
reasoning  was  too  plain.  This  indifference  to  the  wel- 
fare of  others  is  driving  both  humanity  and  divinity  out 
of  our  social  state.  Justice  beating  up  against  it  has 
to  tack  like  a  ship  striving  against  a  head  wind.  This 
indifference  is  a  dangerous  thing,  as  we  shall  find  out 
some  day.  September  2nd  was  ''Labor-day"  in  Chi- 
cago, and  thousands  of  workingmen  celebrated  it  by  a 
procession  and  some  festivities.  I  walked  through  the 
city,  but  I  could  not  see  the  slightest  interest  in  the 
occasion  outside  the  workingmen  themselves  and  their 
own  families.  This  was  not  well,  and  the  influence  of 
this  neglect  is  evil.  There  ought  to  have  been  some 
show  of  kindly  feeling:  on  the  oart  of  those  who  do  not 
have  to  toil  so  hard  as  those  artisans  and  laborers.  Do 
the  capitalists  imagine  that  these  men  will  not  return 
them  scorn  for  scorn.  Labor-day  is  a  national  holiday 
in  England,  and  it  ought  to  be  so  here.  Nay,  capital 
has  very  skillfully  obtained  credit  for  the  festival ;  it  is 
called  "Bank  Holiday."  It  was  made  national  by 
Act  of  Parliament  through  the  efforts  of  Sir  John  Lub- 
bock, a  banker ;  and  in  the  vernacular  of  the  common 
people,  the  holiday  is  called  Saint  Lubbock's  day.  In 
the  calendar  of  the  canonized  I  find  a  patron  saint  for 
almost  everything  and  everybody  except  labor  and 
laborers.     Sir  John  Lubbock  has  been  chosen  to  fill 


SIGNING  THE  DOCUMENT.  47 

that  vacancy,  and  his  canonization  is  more  valid  than 
that  of  many  saints  I  know  of.  Few  rich  men  realize 
how  much  easier  the  "Labor  Problem"  has  been 
made  in  England  by  Saint  Lubbock's  day. 

On  the  second  of  September,  I  watched  the  work- 
ingmen's  procession  with  some  sadness  because  it  did 
not  appear  to  be  the  march  of  light-hearted  men 
with  springy  feet,  except  when  the  band  played  the 
Marseillaise.  Then  I  saw  good  marching  and  a  flash- 
ing in  the  eyes,  while  some  of  the  marchers  broke  into 
song.      A  fiery  stimulant  is  that  Marseillaise. 

While  waiting  for  the  procession,  and  watching  the 
busy  crowds  moving  rapidly  to  and  fro,  I  saw  a  police- 
man with  a  prisoner  in  his  charge.  The  criminal  was 
a  young  man  with  a  godd  face  enough,  save  that  it 
wore  a  somewhat  hard  expression.  His  slouch  of  a 
hat  was  drawn  down  over  his  eyes  showing  a  feeling 
of  pride  in  him  yet.  He  walked  doggedly  and  almost 
defiantly  along  like  a  prisoner  of  war.  Nobody  paid 
the  least  attention  to  him,  nor  showed  any  concern 
for  his  fate,  and  he  returned  the  indifference  as  I  could 
see  by  his  manner  and  his  walk.  He  evidently  felt  that 
in  the  battle  between  the  classes  and  the  masses,  he 
had  been  captured  by  the  classes  and  was  simply  not 
a  criminal  but  a  prisoner  of  war.  His  fellow  men  were 
too  busy  to  bother  about  him,  and  why  should  he  care 
about  them.  Between  him  and  them  there  existed  a 
state  of  social  war. 

I  borrow  the  phrase  ''too  busy"  from  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Illinois,  with  whom  I  had  an  interview  in 
August.  I  was  pleading  with  him  to  perform  an  act 
of  justice  and  humanity,  which  I  knew  would  bring 
upon  him  a  storm  of  hostile  criticism.  Without  con- 
ceding or  denying  the  justice  of  my  prayer,  he  said, 


48  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

"  How  can  I  affront  popular  opinion  by  doing  what 
you  ask?  The  public  mind  is  made  up."  I  answered, 
"The  justice  of  it  will  be  seen  when  the  matter  is  in- 
vestigated." '*But,"  he  replied,  "it  will  not  be  inves- 
tigated. Men  are  too  busy  to  explore  for  justice.  They 
will  only  read  the  headlines  of  the  articles  denouncing 
me  for  doing  it.  They  are  too  busy."  "  Moral  cow- 
ardice," I  quote  his  very  words,  "moral  cowardice  is 
the  failing  of  our  people.  Some  of  the  men  who  join 
with  you  in  asking  this  of  me,  would  join  my  enemies 
in  denouncing  me  for  doing  it." 

The  man  who  told  me  this  was  a  student  of  pol- 
itics and  of  men.  He  had  found  out  that  indifference 
to  the  rights  of  others  was  a  trait  of  our  social  char- 
acter. It  was  a  hard  lesson  to  learn  and  I  did  not  like 
to  learn  it.  I  am  glad  to  know  that  it  is  not  univer- 
sally true,  for  I  can  point  out  hundreds  of  men  whose 
generous  lives  give  it  splendid  contradiction,  but  what 
I  saw  on  Monday  convinced  me  that  much  of  it  was 
true.  How  then  can  we  expect  an  ambitious  man,  hon- 
orably ambitious  too,  with  a  possible  great  future  be- 
fore him  to  imperil  his  prospects  by  offending  public 
sentiment  ?  And  how  can  we  expect  a  man  of  humble 
station  who  must  labor  with  his  hands  for  bread,  in  a 
social  atmosphere  of  absolute  indifference  to  him  or  his 
affairs,  how  can  we  expect  him  to  risk  his  job  of  work 
by  refusing  to  sign  the  document  ? 


49 


LIVE  AND  NOT  LET  LIVE. 


This  is  the  motto  of  monopoly,  the  creed  of  selfish- 
ness, the  religion  of  greed,  and  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  it  is  practiced  by  the  man  of  millions,  or  by 
him  who  has  no  capital  but  his  trade. 

I  sign  my  name  ''Wheelbarrow,"  because  that  is 
the  implement  of  my  handicraft,  or  was,  when  I  was  a 
strong  man.  I  was  by  profession  a  ''railroad  man"; 
my  part  of  the  railroad  business  was  making  the  road- 
bed, by  the  aid  of  a  pick,  a  shovel,  and  a  wheelbarrow. 
I  was  a  skilled  workman,  and  had  obtained  the  highest 
diploma  that  could  be  got  in  the  profession.  Jemmy 
Hill  and  myself  worked  on  the  same  plank,  and  so 
buoyant  and  easy  did  we  make  the  trip  up  and  down, 
and  dump  the  dirt  into  the  exact  spot,  that  we  were 
worth  twenty  per  cent,  more  than  any  other  men  on 
the  job.  There  was  a  superannuated  old  Irishman  in 
our  "gang"  who  had  helped  in  building  every  rail- 
road from  Montreal  to  Minneapolis ;  he  had  become 
too  stiff  for  the  wheelbarrow  and  the  pick,  and  was  re- 
duced to  the  shovel  alone,  which  he  could  still  handle 
tolerably  well ;  his  duty  was  to  stay  on  top  of  the  pile 
and  "level  off"  with  the  shovel.  His  work  was  made 
hard  or  easy  according  to  the  skill  of  the  rest.  Awk- 
ward fellows  would  dump  their  loads  in  a  dead  heap, 
maybe  a  couple  of  feet  from  the  place,  leaving  him  to 
shovel  it  the  rest  of  the  way,  while  Jemmy  and  I  would 


50  •      WHEELBARROW. 

give  the  loads  a  flirt  with  the  right  wrist,  or  the  left, 
as  the  case  might  be,  and  scatter  the  dirt  on  the  pre- 
cise location,  leaving  Tim  nothing  to  do  but  give  it  a 
couple  of  taps  for  form's  sake.  One  day  he  burst  into 
admiration  at  our  skill,  and  ^aid,  ''Yez  could  wheel 
on  a  horse's  rib."  I  show  this  diploma,  not  from  van- 
ity, but  as  proof  that  I  graduated  with  high  honors  in 
the  railroad  college. 

You  may  sneer  at  classing  dirt-shoveling  with 
'' skilled  labor."  A  hundred  dollars  to  one  that  you 
can't  wheel  a  'barrow  full  of  dirt  up  a  plank,  say  at  the 
easy  incline  of  30  degrees,  without  looking  at  your 
feet,  and  the  same  wager  that  you  can't  come  down 
the  plank,  dragging  the  empty  'barrow  behind  you, 
without  running  the  wheel  off  the  track.  You  won't 
take  the  bet?  Very  well  ;  then  don't  make  fun  of  my 
diploma  until  you  are  able  to  ' '  wheel  on  a  horse's  rib. " 

One  day  a  greenhorn  came  along  and  got  a  job  in 
our  gang;  he  was  awkward  as  a  landlubber  trying  to 
climb  the  top-gallantmast.  He  would  look  at  his  feet 
as  he  went  up  the  plank,  and  the  wheel  of  the  'barrow 
would  run  off;  he  would  look  at  the  wheel,  and  his  feet 
would  step  off ;  he  asked  advice,  but  we  who  had 
learned  the  trade  had  now  become  monopolists,  and 
refused  to  give  any  instruction;  all  of  us  except  Jemmy 
Hill;  he  took  the  fellow  in  hand,  and  showed  him  how 
to  walk  the  plank,  which  he  obviously  had  no  right 
whatever  to  do.  That  night,  up  at  the  shanty  where 
we  lived,  my  tongue  swaggered  a  good  deal,  to  the 
admiration  of  everybody  except  Jemmy  Hill.  I  gushed 
eloquently  about  the  wrong  done  us  in  employing 
greenhorn  wheelers  and  "plug"  shovelers,  and  we 
proposed  to  form  ourselves  into  a  ''brotherhood  "  to 
protect   ourselves   against    monopoly,    and   especially 


LIVE  AND  NOT  LET  LIVE.  51 

making  it  a  capital  offense  for  one  of  the  '' brother- 
hood "  to  teach  a  fellow- creature  how  to  wheel  a  'bar- 
row full  of  dirt  up  a  plank. 

The  next  day  was  Sunday,  and  Jemmy  and  I  took 
a  walk  to  a  favorite  spot  where  we  used  to  smoke  our 
pipes  and  gossip.  The  glorious  St.  Lawrence  rolled 
at  our  feet,  and  the  sun  shone  bright  overhead.  Jemmy 
was  a  young  fellow  from  the  North  of  Ireland,  about 
five  feet  nine  or  ten,  slim,  all  sinew  and  bone,  blue 
eyes,  light  hair,  and  a  fair,  smooth  face,  beautiful  as 
a  girl's.  He  had  a  soft,  musical  voice,  and  there  was 
nothing  manly  about  him,  except  that  he  liked  to 
smoke  ;  but  he  was  brave  as  Phil.  Sheridan  ;  he  was  a 
holy  terror  in  a  fight ;  I  saw  him  scatter  a  dozen  fellows 
once  in  a  riot,  like  Samson  used  to  clear  out  those 
Philistines.  He  is  president  of  a  railroad  now,  and 
rides  in  his  own  special  car,  in  which  there  is  always 
a  welcome  berth  for  me. 

We  talked  about  the  necessity  of  protecting  our 
craft  from  ''plug"  workmen,  or,  rather,  I  did  ;.  Jemmy 
merely  smoked  his  pipe  and  listened.  At  last  hepulled 
out  of  his  pocket  a  watch-charm,  and  handed  it  to  me 
to  examine.  The  crest  on  it  was  a  couple  of  torches, 
one  lighting  the  other,  with  this  motto  underneath  : 
**  My  light  is  none  the  less  for  lighting  my  neighbor." 
He  explained  that  this  was  the  motto  of  some  secret 
society  that  he  belonged  to  in  Belfast ;  I  forget  the  name 
of  it  now,  but  no  matter,  that  was  the  motto  of  it, 
'*My  light  is  none  the  less  for  lighting  my  neighbor," 
I  accepted  the  rebuke,  and  acknowledged  that  the 
motto  was  a  good  one.  That  was  many  years  ago, 
but  the  longer  I  live  the  more  I  am  convinced  that  it 
is  sound  in  political  science  and  social  economy.      It 


'TIB17JRSIT 


52  WHEELBARROW. 

is  the  very  antithesis  of  the  narrow  principle,  -'Live 
and  not  let  live." 

I  commend  it  to  workingmen  the  world  over ;  the 
practice  of  it  will  make  them  better,  happier,  and 
richer  than  the  other  principle,  which  cannot  become 
general  without  reducing  the  world  to  barbarism. 
Had  this  been  the  motto  of  the  telegraph  brotherhood, 
it  might  have  saved  them  the  humiliation  of  '^signing 
the  document,"  it  might  havie  spared  them  the  neces- 
sity of  the  strike,  and  even  in  their  failure  it  would 
have  secured  to  them  the  sympathy  of  all  men  whose 
good  opinion  was  worth  having.  How  can  we  sym- 
pathize with  men  in  a  struggle  with  monopoly  who 
themselves  seek  to  become  monopolists  of  the  knowl- 
edge that  earns  bread,  who  in  the  very  charter  of  their 
order  pledge  themselves  to  one  another  never  to  teach 
their  trade,  and  who  seek  to  control  the  free  action  of 
their  brother  craftsmen  ?  Men  who  would  enslave 
others  easily  become  slaves,  and  the  telegraphers  who 
left  their  keys  free  men  and  proud  returned  to  them  in 
a  month  with  their  liberty  signed  away.  George 
Stephenson,  the  greatest  engineer  of  modern  times, 
or  perhaps  of  any  time,  was  refused  admission  into  the 
''order"  of  engineers  because  he  was  a  "plug,"  who 
had  never  served  an  apprenticeship.  The  men  who 
did  that  would  have  deprived  him  of  his  genius  if  they 
could,  although  that  genius  has  multiplied  the  com- 
forts of  man  a  hundred  or  a  thousand-fold. 

Men  are  interested  not  in  the  downfall,  but  in  the 
upraising  of  one  another  ;  not  in  the  poverty  of  any,  but 
in  the  riches  of  all ;  not  in  the  ignorance  of  a  part,  but 
in  the  intelligence  and  wisdom  of  the  whole.  The  con- 
trary principle  impairs  the  symmetry  of  the  moral  uni- 
verse, whose  laws  are  perfect  and  harmonious  as  the 


LIVE  AJSID  NOT  LET  LIVE.  53 

laws  which  govern  matter.  Every  man  is  interested  in 
the  welfare  and  prosperity  of  every  other  man ;  none 
can  suffer  loss  without  all  sharing  in  it.  I  cannot  show 
you  where  I  lost  a  penny  by  the  great  Chicago  fire, 
and  yet  I  know  that  two  or  three  hundred  million  dol- 
lars worth  of  property  could  not  be  blotted  out  of  ex- 
istence without  my  losing  something  somewhere.  I 
cannot  show  you  that  I  lost  a  dollar  by  the  Franco- 
German  war,  and  yet  I  -know  that  two  great  nations 
cannot  destroy  tens  of  thousands  of  each  other's  men, 
and  tens  of  millions  of  each  other's  property  without 
my  losing  something.  This  world  of  ours  is  a  small 
world,  and  no  part  of  it  is  so  remote  from  me  that 
people  can  suffer  loss  without  my  sharing  in  that  loss; 
and  conversely,  mankind  cannot  grow  richer  and  leave 
me  poorer,  nor  wiser  and  leave  me  ignorant,  nor  bet- 
ter and  leave  me  worse.  That  is  my  religion,  and,  in 
the  language  of  Ingersoll,  ''Upon  that  rock  I  stand." 


54  WHEELBARR  O  W. 


THE  LAOKOON  OF  LABOR. 


Most  of  us  have  seen  the  picture  of  Laokoon  and 
his  two  sons  in  the  embrace  of  the  avenging  serpents 
sent  to  punish  them  for  sacrilege.  I  think  that  was 
their  offense ;  or  perhaps  it  was  blasphemy.  It  was 
some  crime  against  religion,  and  the^punishment  was 
of  that  exquisite  cruelty  that  angry  gods  delight  in.  I 
am  not  familiar  with  the  legend  connected  with  the 
picture,  but  I  have  read  that  the  piece  of  sculpture 
from  which  it  is  taken  is  considered  superior  to  every 
other  work  of  art  in  the  world.  I  can  readily  believe 
it,  for  even  the  picture  shows  the  muscular  contor- 
tions of  the  strong  man  in  his  agony.  But  they  avail 
him  nothing.  His  masculine  sinews,  hardened  and 
distended  by  the  death  struggle,  only  furnish  a  firmer 
fulcrum  for  the  grip  of  the  serpents,  and  he  and  his 
boys  are  crushed  together. 

Like  Laokoon  of  old,  the  American  laborer  and  his 
children  struggle  in  the  coils  of  the  strong  serpents — 
monopoly  and  aristocracy.  Capital  furnishes  their 
constrictive  power,  and  every  effort  for  freedom  only 
tightens  the  grip.  We  strike  for  higher  wages,  and 
end  by  '' signing  the  document,"  making  our  slavery 
a  matter  of  record,  and  mortgaging  our  children  ''even 
to  the  third  and  fourth  generation."  On  the  altar  of 
"brotherhood  "  we  immolate  fraternity,  and  forbid  the 
cunning  hands  of  our  neighbor's  boys  to  learn  an  hon- 
est trade  because  we  work  at  it.     We  incorporate  the 


LAOKOON  OF  LABOR.  55 

principle  of  caste  into  the  religion  of  labor,  and  sneer 
at  the  ''plug"  workman  while  denying  him  the  right 
to  learn.  We  butt  our  heads  against  stone  walls,  un- 
der the  delusion  that  the  exercise  toughens  the  brain 
and  strengthens  the  mind.  Assailing  capital  we  insist 
on  being  paid  in  cheap  dollars  for  dear  work,  and  with 
inverted  patriotism  we  carry  torches  in  the  fool  pa- 
rade whose  transparencies  demand  "high  prices  for 
everything."  I  have  a  right  to  talk  like  this,  because 
a  moment  ago,  when  I  went  down  to  the  shed  for  a 
hod  of  dear  coal,  I  saw  inglorious  in  the  corner  the 
helmet  that  I  wore  and  the  torch  that  I  bore  ''in  the 
last  campaign,"  when,  in  company  with  two  thousand 
other  patriots,  I  escorted  "the  orator  of  the  occasion" 
to  the  grand  stand.  I  have  "the  privilege  of  the  floor," 
for  I  got  a  sore  throat  in  cheering  his  fluent  glib- gab 
as  he  boasted  of  our  great  prosperity,  and  called  upon 
us  all  to  vote  early  and  often,  and  bring  our  neighbor 
to  vote  for  the  man  that  made  everything  dear.  The 
same  crusading  will  be  done  again  by  workingmen  next 
year,  but  "not  for  Joseph — if  he  knows  it — not  for 
Joe."     I  have  carried  my  last  torch. 

Before  labor  can  be  lifted  up  to  its  rightful  dignity 
every  workingman  and  every  man  willing  to  work 
must  be  made  free  of  the  "  brotherhood."  By  helping 
one  another  we  all  rise  together  ;  by  dragging  each 
other  down  we  all  fall  together.  So  long  as  the  man 
who  lays  the  bricks  treats  as  his  inferior  the  man  who 
carries  them  up  the  ladder,  neither  of  them  is  free  ;  so 
long  as  the  man  who  drives  the  engine  despises  the 
man  who  pushes  the  wheelbarrow,  so  long  monopoly 
will  hold  them  in  a  common  bondage.  This  is  the 
philosophy  of  all  experience  since  man  first  became  the 
hired  man  of  his  brother. 


56  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

I  once  had  a  job  of  shoveling  at  a  place  called  Man- 
chester, in  Virginia,  just  opposite  Richmond.  One 
Sunday  I  was  taking  a  walk  with  a  friend  in  Richmond, 
and  I  remarked  the  inequality  of  the  negroes  in  the 
streets,  as  indicated  by  their  personal  appearance. 
Some  were  ragged,  brutal-faced,  and  twisted  out  of 
shape  by  premature  and  unnatural  toil ;  others  were 
well  clad  and  evidently  well  fed.  One  bright  mulatto, 
of  genteel  figure  and  face,  was  clad  in  black  broad- 
cloth \  he  wore  a  shiny  silk-hat  and  carried  a  cane.  It 
was  easy  to  see  also  that  there  were  castes  among 
them,  superiors  and  inferiors,  and  that  the  higher 
orders  looked  with  scorn  upon  the  lower  classes.  I 
thought  that  those  finely  dressed  negroes  were  pro- 
bably free.  *'No,"  said  my  friend,  '^they  are  all 
slaves,  but  there  are  degrees  even  in  slavery  ;  there  are 
*  soft  things '  there  as  in  freedom."  Next  day  I  was 
standing  by  the  Washington  monument,  when  I  saw  a 
procession  of  negroes  fastened  by  couples  to  a  long 
chain.  They  were  marching  to  the  shambles  to  be 
sold,  where  I  followed  them  to  see  the  auction.  That 
lot  of  fellow-Christians  brought,  on  an  average,  about 
six  dollars  a  pound.  Among  them  was  the  bright 
mulatto — plug  hat,  broadcloth  and  all.  He  was  chained 
to  a  vulgar  looking  field  hand.  All  supercilious  airs 
were  gone,  and  every  face  carried  the  same  hopeless 
look  of  despair.  All  distinctions  were  leveled  in  the 
handcuffs  that  tightened  them  to  a  common  chain.  So 
it  is  with  the  workingmen.  We  may  build  steps  on 
which  to  place  the  various  crafts  one  above  another, 
with  the  laborer  and  his  wheelbarrow  at  the  bottom, 
but  while  we  are  doing  that  concentrated  capital  is 
binding  us  by  couples  to  an  impartial  degradation.  We 
can,    if  we   will,    reverse    the    fate  of    Laokoon  and 


LAOKOON  OF  LABOR.  57 

strangle  the  serpents,  but  we  must  all  work  together  ; 
the  trowel  must  not  tyrannize  over  the  hod,  nor  the 
jackplane  sneer  at  the  shovel. 


58  WHEELBARR  O IV. 


MAKING  SCARCITY. 


Some  time  ago  I  made  a  few  remarks  upon  that 
**  competition  "  hobgoblin,  which  makes  the  hair  of 
workingmen  stand  up  in  fright,  '*like  quills  upon  the 
fretful  porcupine."  From  my  boyhood,  it  was  a  ter- 
ror to  me,  but  it  does  not  scare  me  now.  As  I  grew 
older  I  grew  bolder,  and  at  last  I  walked  close  up  to 
it  and  examined  it.  I  found  it  was  a  hollow  pumpkin, 
with  eyes,  nose,  and  mouth  cut  in  it,  and  stuck  on  a 
stick  clothed  in  the  drapery  of  a  white  sheet.  I  see 
that  the  President  of  the  Federation  of  Trades  Unions 
has  exhibited  this  venerable  old  ghost  to  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Education  and  Labor.  Whether  it 
scared  the  committee  or  not  I  cannot  say.  Since 
then  I  have  noticed  that  some  other  gentleman  has 
appeared  before  the  same  committee,  in  company 
with  the  same  spectre,  and  demanded  that  convict 
labor  shall  not  be  put  in  competition  with  the  me- 
chanic trades,  but  shall  be  exclusively  devoted  to  the 
business  of  "working  on  the  roads." 

I  have  tried  to  analyze  the  principle  of  non-com- 
petition, as  enforced  by  the  trades  unions,  and  so  far 
as  I  have  been  able  to  resolve  it  into  its  constituent 
elements,  its  chief  ingredients  appear  to  be  monop- 
oly and  selfishness,  with  some  very  foolish  dread  of 
the  evils  of  abundance.  Take  this  convict  labor  ques- 
tion for  example*     Convict  labor  is  not  opposed  on 


MAKING  SCARCITY.  59 

any  ground  but  that  of  '' competition."  It  competes 
with  outside  labor,  that  is,  it  produces  something, 
and  this  production  is  the  injury  complained  of.  Let 
us  reduce  the  question  to  a  concrete  form.  Suppose 
that  the  two  thousand  convicts  in  the  penitentiaries  of 
Illinois  are  all  compelled  to  work  at  the  shoemaking 
trade,  and  suppose  that  they  each  make  a  pair  of 
shoes  a  day,  or  62,400  pairs  a  year,  will  it  be  con- 
tended that  the  addition  of  this  number  of  shoes  to 
the  common  stock  is  an  injury  to  the  people  of  Illi- 
nois ?  There  is  no  one  who  will  claim  that  ;  but  the 
President  of  the  Federation  will  say  :  "  It  is  an  injury 
to  the  shoemakers'  trade,  and  therefore  it  ought  to  be 
prevented." 

Very  well,  then  make  tailors  of  the  convicts.  This 
plan  doesn't  solve  the  difficulty  either,  for  the  tailors 
won't  agree  to  it,  nor  the  tinkers,  nor  the  tanners,  nor 
the  masons,  nor  the  carpenters,  nor  any  other  trade. 
As  the  butcher,  and  baker,  and  candlestick-maker  all 
refuse  to  work  in  competition  with  the  convicts,  and 
as  none  of  these  economists  are  daring  enough  to  re- 
quire that  the  convicts  live  in  idleness,  an  easy  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  is  found  by  compelling  them  "  to 
work  upon  the  roads."  But  really  this  is  only  shift- 
ing the  difficulty,  and  is  no  solution  at  all.  At  school 
I  have  solved  many  a  hard  problem  in  long  division, 
which  is  as  far  as  I  went,  by  getting  some  other  boy 
to  do  the  sum  for  me,  and  the  President  of  the  Feder- 
ation adopts  the  same  plan  with  the  convict  labor  dif- 
ficulty. He  dumps  it  on  the  *  laborer"  class,  and 
says  :  ''  Here,  you  man  with  the  wheelbarrow,  work 
this  hard  sum."  But  I  am  not  able  to  work  it,  be- 
cause I  find  that  I  cannot  set  the  convicts  at  any  use- 
ful employment  without  putting  them  in  competition 


6o  WHEELS  A  RR  O  W. 

with  somebody.  They  must  either  live  in  idleness  at 
the  expense  of  the  community,  or  they  must  earn 
something  to  pay  for  their  board  ;  to  earn  something 
they  must  produce  something,  and  that  is  an  addition 
to  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the  people,  at  which  we 
all  get  a  nibble  at  last. 

If  adding  to  the  wealth  of  a  country  is  an  injury, 
then  subtracting  from  that  wealth  must  be  a  benefit, 
and  therefore  the  destruction  of  shoes  and  clotkes,  and 
houses  and  furniture,  must  be  a  desirable  thing  ;  the 
Chicago  fire,  instead  of  being  a  great  calamity,  was  a 
great  blessing.  This  fallacy  is  firmly  cherished  by 
workingmen  ;  it  is  the  guiding  principle  of  trades 
unions,  and  is  productive  of  want  and  poverty  incal- 
culable. It  was  instilled  into  me  in  my  very  child- 
hood, and  it  was  late  when  I  got  rid  of  it.  I  never  ate 
a  meal  when  a  boy,  that  was  not  somehow  or  other 
complicated  with  the  everlasting  consideration  of 
''  work."  When  I  got  a  good  dinner  I  knew  that  my 
father  was  **  in  work  "  ;  when  the  meal  was  scanty  I 
knew  that  he  was  ^'out  of  work."  In  our  home  all 
human  affairs  whirled  round  and  round  the  image  of 
*'work"  forever.  A  big  fire  devoured  a  street — *'  It 
will  make  work,"  I  heard  my  father  say.  A  ship  was 
lost  at  sea  laden  with  silk,  and  leather,  and  cloth — 
"It  will  make  work,"  said  my  father.  A  reservoir 
broke  jail  and  swept  the  heart  of  the  town  away — "  It 
will  make  work,"  my  mother  said  ;  and  so  all  human 
calamities  were  softened  as  blessings  to  me ;  they 
made  work,  and  work  made  wages,  and  wages  made 
bread  and  potatoes  and  clothes  for  me.  God  bless  the 
shipwreck,  and  the  fire,  and  the  flood  ;  they  make 

"  Work,  work,  work,  till  the  eyes  are  heavy  and  dim, 
And  work,  work,  work,  till  the  brain  begins  to  swim." 


MAKING  SCARCITY.  6i 

Oh,  comrade  of  the  trowel,  the  needle,  and  the 
awl  ;  oh,  toiler  at  the  anVil  and  the  loom  ;  oh,  brother 
of  the  jackplane  and  the  shovel  ;  oh,  chivalry  of  toil 
by  land  and  sea,  it  is  not  work  we  need  so  much  as 
rest !  Let  us  make  all  the*  wealth  we  can,  and  destroy 
nothing  ;  let  us  not  be  jealous  of  each  other's  talent, 
but  teach  each  other  everything  we  know !  Let  us 
make  plenty  in  the  land,  and  then  let  us  try  to  shape 
our  social  system  and  the  laws  so  that  a  fairer  share 
of  it  will  come  to  us  after  we  have  made  it. 

Last  fall  I  picked  up  a  newspaper  and  read  in 
great  black  headlines  this  alarming  news  :  ''A  Heavy 
Frost.  It  spread  over  various  sections  of  the  North- 
west Friday  night.  Early  planted  corn  escaped  with 
little  injury  ;  the  late  crop  practically  ruined."  It  re- 
quires no  great  skill  in  political  economy,  as  they  call 
it,  to  understand  that  the  blighting  of  the  corn  crop  is 
a  great  calamity  ;  it  means  less  food  the  coming  win- 
ter, and  less  food  means  less  of  clothes,  and  coal,  and 
wood.  And  yet  tliere  are  a  lot  of  workingmen  who 
would  regard  a  blight  of  the  hat  crop,  or  the  shoe 
crop,  or  the  coat  crop  as  a  blessing  to  labor  ;  but  in 
truth  they  are  all  equally  injurious  as  the  blighting  of 
the  cattle  and  the  corn.  Food,  and  clothes,  and  fur- 
niture, and  all  necessaries  of  life,  are  so  intimately 
related,  that  the  blight  of  one  is  the  blight  of  all,  and 
it  means  less  of  each  to  the  workingman. 

It  is  easy  to  prove  by  the  doctrines  of  the  anti- 
competitionists  that  this  disaster  to  the  corn  crop  is  a 
good  thing,  because  it  removes  from  the  farmers  liv- 
ing south  of  the  frost  line  the  competition  in  the  corn 
market  of  the  farmers  living  north  of  it.  And  it  is 
also  a  good  thing  for  the  people  who  have  old  corn  in 
the  bins  ;  but  this  is  a  narrow  and  selfish  way  to  look 


6  2  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

at  it,  and  if  the  doctrine  be  carried  out  to  its  logical 
end  it  elevates  to  the  rank,  of  a  moral  principle  the 
unnatural  dogma  that  the  prosperity  of  one  man  de- 
pends upon  the  adversity  of  another.  Once  upon  a 
time  I  had  a  job  of  "  v^ork  on  the  roads  "  not  far 
from  an  Indian  agency.  The  tribe  had  just  been  paid 
off,  and  the  Indians  were  trading  at  the  store  up  at 
the  agency,  where  I  happened  to  go  for  some  tobacco. 
They  were  buying  some  needles,  for  which  the  trader 
charged  them  fifty  cents  apiece.  They  complained  of 
the  price,  but  when  the  trader  assured  them  that  the 
needle-maker  was  dead,  and  the  needle-making  indus- 
try thereby  terminated,  they  appeared  satisfied.  This 
lying  excuse  for  the  high  price  of  needles  presented  to 
me  a  tough  problem  in  economic  science,  and  I  went 
up  to  the  shanty  to  work  it  out. 

I  lighted  my  pipe,  and  tried  to  read  the  solution 
of  the  problem  in  the  clouds  of  smoke.  The  first 
question  to  be  answered  was  this  :  Suppose  the 
needle-maker  was  really  dead,  and  his  art  lost  for- 
ever, would  that  be  a  good  thing  ?  I  had  no  tiouble 
with  this  question  at  all.  I  could  readily  see  that  al- 
though it  might  be  a  good  thing  for  the  man  who  hap- 
pened to  have  a  large  stock  of  needles  on  hand,  it 
would  be  a  bad  thing  for  everybody  else.  The  next 
question  was  not  so  easy.  It  was  this  :  Suppose  that 
one-half  of  the  needle-makers  in  the  world  should  die 
to-night,  would  that  be  a  good  thing  in  an  economic 
point  of  view  ?  It  took  several  pipes  of  tobacco  to 
answer  this  question,  and  I  am  not  sure  that  I  got  it 
right  even  then.  The  answer  involved  so  many  col- 
laterals. It  was  very  clear  that  if  every  needle-maker 
was  a  master,  and  not  a  journeyman,  those  who  sur- 
vived, being  relieved  of  competition  to  such  a  great 


MAKING  SCARCITY.  63 

extent,  would  make  good  profit  out  of  it  by  raising  the 
price  of  needles,  but  the  community  would-  still  be 
losers.  But  suppose  that  of  the  survivors  95  per  cent, 
were  journeymen,  and  5  per  cent,  masters,  where 
would  the  new  profits  go  ?  Labor  being  a  marketable 
thing,  the  masters  would  still  want  to  buy  it  at  the 
old  figures,  and  the  jours  would  get  but  a  trifling 
raise  of  wages,  while  the  increased  value  of  needles 
would  nearly  all  go  into  the  pockets  of  the  masters. 
But  even  supposing  that  the  increased  profit  were 
fairly  divided  between  them,  the  community  would 
still  have  to  pay  it,  and,  therefore,  the  sudden  removal 
of  so  much  competition  in  the  trade  would  be  an 
injury,  and  not  a  benefit.  Applying  this  rule  to 
every  other  trade  and  occupation,  it  appeared  to  me 
that  the  loss  of  wealth,  or  of  wealth-producing  capa- 
city, is  injurious  to  the  communit}^,  that  the  working- 
men  cannot  be  benefited  by  such  loss,  and  that  all 
attempts  to  create  a  scarcity  of  competition  by  crip- 
pling talent,  or  forbidding  the  industry  of  anybody, 
can  only  be  of  local  or  personal  benefit  here  and  there, 
and  the  pursuit  of  such  false  systems  of  relief  is  a  sad 
waste  of  the  moral  strength  of  the  workingmen. 

** Nature  abhors  a  vacuum,"  is  a  maxim  in  phys- 
ics, and  in  moral  philosophy  also.  So  nature  tries 
forever  to  preserve  an  equilibrium  in  the  moral  and 
material  universe.  The  very  earthquakes  and  volca- 
noes are  efforts  in  this  direction,  and  men  can  no 
easier  keep  trades  unbalanced  than  they  can  disturb 
the  level  of  the  sea.  Create  a  vacuum  in  any  trade 
and  nature  rushes  in  to  fill  it.  If  I  should  give  paral- 
ysis to  every  shoveler  to-night,  how  long  should  I 
enjoy  my  monopoly  ?  In  a  week  I  should  see  shov- 
elers  galore.    The  telegraph  operators  made  a  vacuum, 


64  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

but  only  for  an  instant  ;  it  at  once  began  to  fill;  in  a 
month  the  hole  was  almost  gone.  We  may  think  we 
have  destroyed  competition  by  excluding  a  brother 
craftsman  here,  but  he  or  somebody  else  has  slipped 
in  over  there,  for  the  struggle  of  life  goes  on.  We 
must  liberate  labor,  and  exalt  it  by  grander  schemes 
than  these. 


65 


COMPETITION  IN  TRADES. 


A  SHORT  time  ago  the  president  of  the  Federation 
of  Trades  Unions  testified  before  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Labor.  I  see  by  the  papers  that  he  proposed  as  a 
remedy  for  the  alleged  wrongs  of  journeymen  me- 
chanics, that  the  convicts  in  penitentiaries,  instead  of 
working  at  trades  within  the  walls,  be  taken  out  and 
worked  upon  the  public  roads.  On  behalf  of  the 
"knights"  of  the  shovel  and  wheelbarrow  I  protest 
against  this  plan.  What  right  has  the  Federation  of 
Trades  Unions  to  dump — I  use  a  term  suggested  by 
my  profession — what  right  has  that  federation  to  dump 
the  whole  convict  "brotherhood"  upon  us?  What 
right  has  the  president  of  it  to  make  his  class  an  order 
of  nobility  to  flaunt  their  airs  of  eminence  in  the  faces 
of  us  who  labor  in  a  lower  calling,  who  have  not 
reached  the  rank  of  mechanics,  but  who  must  content 
ourselves  with  the  honorable  but  yet  inferior  desig- 
nation, "laborers"? 

The  president  of  the  Federation  and  his  order  get 
higher  wages  than  we  laborers  get  ;  they  can  better 
afford  to  stand  the  competition  of  the  convicts  than 
we  can.  We  who  "work  upon  the  roads"  have  just 
as  much  right  to  protection  against  convict  picks  and 
shovels  as  the  president  of  the  Federation  has  to  pro- 
tection against  convict  chisels,  awls,  or  jack-planes. 
Will  he  give  us  some  good  reason  why  convicts  should 
be  permitted  to  compete  with  some  kinds  of  labor  and 


66  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

not  with  others  ?  Are  we  to  have  an  aristocracy  of 
trades? 

I  never  had  time  to  study  the  principles  of  political 
economy,  and  I  know  nothing  about  the  laws  of  social 
science,  but  the  facts  of  both  have  fallen  upon  me 
heavy  as  a  hammer,  and  upon  the  stern  logic  of  those 
facts  I  built  my  own  ethics  of  labor  in  those  delightful 
moments  when,  having  dumped  the  load,  I  leisurely 
trolled  my  wheelbarrow  behind  me  down  the  plank  to 
the  hole  in  the  ground  where  it  had  to  be  filled  again. 
Sixteen  hours  a  day  of  hard  work  is  bad  schooling  for 
a  boy  of  thirteen.  In  the  bright  days  of  childhood, 
when  the  mind  and  body  should  grow  into  strength 
and  beauty,  mine  were  being  stunted  and  warped  by 
toil  savage  and  unnatural.  I  ought  to  be  five  feet  ten; 
that's  my  correct  stature  by  rights ;  I  am  less  than  five 
feet  six.  Toil  stunted  me  when  I  was  in  the  gristle. 
I  had  no  time  to  study  books,  and  the  principles  of  life 
that  I  learned,  such  as  they  were,  I  had  to  gather  in 
the  college  of  hard  knocks. 

After  all,  a  man  can  think  with  considerable  clear- 
ness walking  down  a  plank  with  an  empty  'barrow  be- 
hind him,  and  I  have  worked  out  hundreds  of  labor 
problems  while  ''walking  the  plank"  in  that  way. 
Some  of  my  solutions  I  afterward  threw  away  as  in- 
correct, and  others  I  cling  to  still.  The  open  air  is  a 
good  place  for  mental  work  ;  a  clear  atmosphere  makes 
clear  thought,  while  the  inspiration  of  a  few  big 
draughts  of  it  into  a  good  pair  of  lungs  quickens  the 
mind.  You  don't  get  your  full  ration  of  oxygen  in  the 
house ;  out  of  doors  you  do,  and  that  is  a  wholesome 
stimulant  better  than  wine.  You  can  unlearn  a  great 
many  things,  too,  in  the  open  air,  and  one  of  the  use- 
ful arts  is  that  of  unlearning.      I  have  unlearned  many 


COMPETITION  IN  TRADES.  67 

of  my  theories  about  labor,  and  some  of  my  doctrines 
I  have  been  compelled  not  only  to  change  but  to  re- 
verse. The  effort  of  labor  competition  upon  the  wel- 
fare of  workingmen  appears  to  me  now  in  a  different 
light  than  it  formerly  did,  and  I  am  satisfied  that  we 
must  reverse  our  ancient  opinion  that  it  is  desirable  to 
produce  a  scarcity  of  men,  a  scarcity  of  skill,  and  a 
scarcity  of  production.  So  long  as  we  cling  to  those 
old  superstitions  we  can  never  successfully  assert  the 
dignity  of  labor. 

Already  they  have  reduced  labor  to  a  mendicant 
condition.  It  begs  for  favors  where  it  ought  to  compel 
rights.  The  beggarly  petition  ''a  fair  day's  wages  for 
a  fair  day's  work, "  is  unworthy  of  straight-built,  square- 
cut  men.  Let  us  shape  the  laws  of  this  land — social 
and  political — so  that  we  may  obtain  a  reward  for  our 
labor  equal  to  its  full  value.  We  are  leveling  wages 
to  the  grade  of  alms,  and  our  masters  pay  it  to  us  like 
the  dole  of  charity.  If  we  take  a  narrow  view  of  hu- 
man life  our  share  of  life's  comforts  will  be  narrow 
and  mean.  We  must  expand  the  horizon  of  man,  and 
not  contract  it.  What  can  be  more  degrading  to  labor 
than  the  assumption  of  the  Federation  that  the  hosts 
of  workingmen  in  Illinois  cannot  stand  the  competi- 
tion of  a  couple  of  thousand  prisoners  bungling  at  the 
tasks  imposed  on  them  for  punishment?  The  welfare 
of  the  workingmen  can  never  consist  in  the  scarcity 
either  of  talent  or  goods,  but  always  in  the  abundance 
of  both. 

Men  like  the  president  of  the  Federation  fight  the 
beneficent  law  of  mutual  assistance  under  the  impres- 
sion that  they  are  fighting  competition  by  limiting  hu- 
man skill.  So  thjey  foolishly  resolve  that  all  handicraft 
shall  be  a  monopoly;   they  put   "mechanics"  back 


68  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

again  among  the  black  arts,  and  forbid  the  teaching 
of  trades.  Not  only  would  they  set  convicts  to  "work- 
ing on  the  roads,"  but  all  the  children  of  the  poor.  I 
have  four  sons,  all  free-born  Americans,  so-called,  and 
all  now  grown  to  manhood.  I  tried  to  give  them 
trades,  as  they  respectively  reached  the  proper  age, 
but  in  every  instance  I  was  forbidden  to  do  so  by  the 
laws  of  the  trades.  All  four  of  them  are  now  men, 
but  not  one  of  them  was  permitted  to  learn  a  trade  in 
the  land  where  they  were  born  and  which  they  have 
been  taught  to  call  a  land  of  freedom.  The  oldest  got 
a  job  as  fireman  on  the  railroad,  and  after  a  few  years 
managed  to  steal  the  trade  of  an  engineer ;  the  next 
drifted  off  to  that  undefinable  country  known  as  "the 
mountains,"  and  there  he  is  wasting  away  his  life  dig- 
ging holes  in  the  ground  searching  for  silver  and  gold. 
The  next  picked  up  a  book  and  taught  himself  the 
shorthand  trade  ;  he  gets  twice  as  much  wages  as  I 
ever  got  with  my  wheelbarrow  and  shovel ;  the  young- 
est gets  a  dollar  a  day  in  a  store  in  the  humblest  ca- 
pacity, but  hopes  to  work  up  in  time  to  the  grade  of 
a  clerk.  That  all  four  of  them  didn't  become  hood- 
lums and  tramps  is  not  the  fault  of  the  unions.  A 
man  with  a  heart  in  him,  even  if  he  has  no  brains  at 
all,  must  see  in  a  moment  that  the  policy  which  robbed 
those  boys  of  the  right  to  learn  a  trade  cannot  be 
right,  and  not  being  right  it  cannot  be  either  econom- 
ical or  wise. 

One  evening  I  was  talking  to  that  shorthand  writer 
about  the  strike  of  the  telegraph  operators,  supposing 
that  he  would  probably  take  a  deep  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject, but  he  cared  little  about  it.  "I  hope  the  opera- 
tors will  win,"  he  said,  "but  I  am  not  anxious  either 
way.     It's  a  choice  of  monopolies,  and  I  side  with  the 


COMPETITION  IN  TRADES.  69 

weaker.  The  companies  monopolize  the  profits  of 
telegraphing,  the  operators  monopolize  the  art.  They 
forbid  one  another  to  teach  the  trade,  and  if  their  mo- 
nopoly is  beaten  by  the  other  it  will  be  no  more  than 
the  big  pike  swallowing  the  little  one." 

I  look  at  it  that  way  myself,  and  it  appears  to  me 
that  if  the  policy  of  shutting  up  one  trade  in  order  to 
prevent  competition  is  good  for  that,  it  must  be  good 
for  every  other  calling  or  profession,  and  all  the  trades 
and  occupations  being  closed,  the  people  outside  must 
be  either  rich,  or  tramps,  or  thieves.  The  trades 
having  shut  everybody  out,  have  shut  themselves  in, 
and  having  deprived  a  large  part  of  the  community  of 
the  means  of  buying  anything,  trade  diminishes,  there  is 
less  demand  for  labor,  and  less  money  to  pay  for  it, 
another  exclusion  then  becomes  necessary,  until  we 
get  back  to  the  wigwams,  where  we  don't  need  any 
mechanics  at  all.  We  might  follow  the  principle  to 
greater  extremities  yet,  until  at  last  we  grub  roots  or 
climb  trees  for  a  dinner,  like  that  primeval  ape  from 
whom  we  all  have  sprung.  I  think  it  is  in  the  story  of 
Rasselas  that  I  read  an  account  of  an  ambitious  man 
who  was  promised  by  the  genii  the  fulfillment  of  one 
wish,  whatever  it  might  be.  He  wished  that  he  could 
be  the  only  wise  man  in  the  world,  and  that  all  other 
men  might  be  fools.  The  wish  was  granted  him,  and 
immediately  afterward  the  people  took  him  and  said, 
"this  man's  a  fool,"  and  they  put  him  in  the  lunatic 
asylum,  where  he  remains  to  this  day.  He  was  a  fool, 
and  so  is  every  man  a  fool  who  thinks  to  grow  wise  on 
his  neighbor's  ignorance,  or  rich  on  his  neighbor's 
poverty. 

I  object  to  the  principle  for  another  reason.  It 
fosters  the  spirit  of  caste  among  workingmen,  and  ere- 


70  WHEELBARROW. 

ates  a  ragged  aristocracy,  the  shabbiest  aristocracy  of 
all.  In  a  gang  that  I  worked  in  once  was  an  Irishman 
named  Jack  Patterson  ;  an  honest  man  was  Jack,  and 
as  true  a  gentleman  as  ever  swung  a  pick.  He  had  a 
son  named  Dick,  and  how  he  managed  it  I  don't  know, 
but  Dick  broke  through  the  crust  that  excluded  him 
from  the  trades,  and  learned  the  art  of  a  plasterer. 
Being  now  a  mechanic,  he  occupied  a  round  on  the 
social  ladder  one  step  higher  than  we  did  who  worked 
with  a  shovel  and  a  pick.  Having  attained  this  giddy 
elevation  Dick  refused  to  associate  any  longer  with  his 
father.  A  friend  condoling  with  his  mother  on  Dick's 
unfilial  conduct,  the  old  lady  replied:  ''Well,  Dick 
always  was  a  high-sperited  boy  \  sure,  you  couldn't 
expect  him  to  associate  wid  an  Irish  laborer."  The 
Federation  of  Trades  Unions  would  make  Dick  Pat- 
tersons of  us  all. 


7' 


TO  ARMS 


I  HAVE  just  been  reading  the  proceedings  of  *'The 
Trade  and  Labor  Assembly,"  and  also  the  resolutions 
of  *'The  Cigar  Maker's  Progressive  Union."  Both 
gatheringsdemand  social  and  economic  changes  of  great 
importance,  but  the  Cigar  Makers  are  the  more  **  pro- 
gressive "  of  the  two.  They  have  reached  the  end  ol 
rational  argument,  and  propose  to  fight.  Their  pro- 
gram was  contained  in  a  ''circular,"  the  first  demand 
of  which  was  ' '  Destruction  of  the  existing  class  rule  by 
energetic,  relentless,  revolutionary,  and  international 
action."  They  also  adopted  some  resolutions,  the 
chief  of  which  was  ''  that  the  only  means  through 
which  our  aims,  the  emancipation  of  all  mankind,  can 
be  accomplished,  is  open  rebellion  of  the  despoiled  of 
all  nations  against  the  existing  social,  economic,  and 
political  institutions."  Those  resolutions  have  a  flavor 
of  Barnaby  Rudge.  They  resemble  the  crimson  doc- 
trines proclaimed  by  the  London  apprentices,  led  by 
that  "relentless"  warrior  of  the  thin  legs  and  the 
wooden  sword,  Captain  Sim.  Tappertit.  Still,  for  all 
that,  their  language  is  plain,  and  they  express  a  bold 
purpose.  A  hater  of  ''class  rule  "  all  my  life,  I  am 
willing  to  fight  for  its  destruction.  Where  is  the 
recruiting  office  ? 

Although  I  am  not  certain  that  a  "class  rule"  of 
"  Progressive  Cigar  Makers"  would  be  any  better  than 


72  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

the  "class  rule  "  we  are  living  under  now,  and  although 
there  is  no  close  affinity  between  shoveling  coal  and 
making  cigars,  still,  I  am  willing  to  stand  by  the  Cigar 
Makers  as  brother  constituents  in  the  great  confra- 
ternity of  labor.  Unlike  most  occupations  toward  each 
other,  there  happens  to  be  no  reciprocity  of  benefits 
between  the  Cigar  Makers  and  me.  The  favors  con- 
ferred are  all  from  them  to  me,  and  none  from  me  to 
them.  They  are  compelled  to  burn  coal,  and  thus  give 
me  employment,  but  I  am  not  compelled  to  burn  cigars. 
I  cannot  help  their  trade  to  the  amount  of  five  cents  a 
year.  I  cannot  afford  to  smoke  cigars.  I  have  to  be 
contented  with  a  pipe  of  tobacco,  and  think  myself 
lucky  to  get  that.  My  son,  however,  the  short-hand 
writer  that  I  spoke  of,  gets  twice  as  much  wages  for 
scribbling  curious  pot-hooks  and  hieroglyphics  as  I  ever 
got  for  shoveling  coal,  and  he  can  afford  to  smoke  cigars. 
I  think  he  smokes  more  of  them  than  is  good  for  him, 
but  that's  his  own  affair,  not  mine.  If  I  had  his  wealth 
I  should  probably  smoke  cigars  as  he  does.  Whether 
I  smoke  their  cigars  or  not  makes  no  difference  ;  I  am 
as  ready  to  fight  for  the  rights  of  Cigar  Makers  as  for 
my  own ;  but,  although  I  have  sought  diligently  for 
it,  I  have  thus  far  been  unable  to  find  the  recruiting 
office.  Where  can  I  find  the  headquarters  of  Captain 
Sim.  Tappertit? 

Brothers,  unless  we  are  ready  to  open  the  recruiting 
office,  let  us  not  talk  about  fighting.  By  doing  so  we 
expose  our  own  weakness.  We  bring  derision  upon 
ourselves  and  contempt  upon  our  cause.  That  is  not 
the  worst  of  it ;  we  undervalue  the  moral  forces  which 
we  hold  in  our  own  hands.  We  depreciate  the  strength 
we  have  by  appealing  to  a  strength  which  we  have  not. 
It  may  be  rash  and  foolish  to  fight  even  for  liberty,  but 


TO  ARMS. 


73 


it  is  brave.  To  talk  fight  without  intending  it  is 
equally  rash  and  foolish,  but  not  brave.  It  is  neither 
wise  nor  patriotic  to  persuade  the  working  men  that 
their  moral  resources  are  all  exhausted,  and  that  there 
is  no  reform  power  in  the  ballot,  in  the  press,  and  in 
public  opinion.  The  statement  is  not  true  ;  and  the 
men  who  make  it  present  to  us  a  dilemma  of  double 
despair.  Without  arms,  discipline,  leaders,  or  even  a 
plan  of  battle,  fighting  is  clearly  hopeless.  If  the  ballot 
is  impotent  also,  then  we  must  fall  back  for  comfort  on 
bombast  and  beer.  We  can  fill  ourselves  with  nectar 
of  the  gods  at  five  cents  a  glass,  and  boast  of  our  in- 
tention at  some  future  time  to  paint  the  universe  red. 
It  is  all  very  fine  to  pass  a  string  of  resolutions,  to 
'*  sound  the  tocsin,"  whatever  that  is,  and  summon  us 
to  the  fray,  but  the  resolutors  will  not  lead  us.  They 
pretend  that  they  can  no  more  set  a  squadron  in  the 
field  than  Michael  Cassio.  They  invite  us  to  go  ahead 
and  do  the  fighting.  If  we  win,  and  accomplish  the 
**  relentless"  revolution,  they  promise  to  step  up  and 
accept  all  the  offices  under  the  new  government.  This 
division  of  labor  is  not  fair. 

Suppose  that  we  do  possess  power  enough  to  over- 
turn one  governnient,  have  we  sufficient  wisdom  to 
form  another  and  a  better  one  ?  I  have  serious  doubts 
about  that.  I  think  we  have  a  great  deal  to  unlearn 
before  we  shall  be  competent  to  establish  and  conduct 
a  just  government.  I  fear  that  even  the  ^'  Progressive 
Cigar  Makers "  are  scarcely  equal  to  the  task.  At 
the  great  Labor  picnic  I  saw  them  with  ''relentless" 
fury  destroy  the  stock  in  trade  of  a  merchant  on  the 
ground.  His  offense  was,  that  he  had  some  cigars  in 
stock  which  had  been  made  by  Cigar  Makers  who 
were  not  "Progressive."     For  this,  his  property  was 


74  WHEELBARROW. 

destroyed  and  his  life  placed  in  jeopardy.  Men,  who 
value  liberty  only  so  far  as  it  gives  them  freedom  to 
oppress  their  fellow  men,  talk  of  building  a  new  civili- 
zation on  the  ruins  of  the  American  political  and 
social  system. 

For  instance,  in  the  ''circular"  referred  to  above, 
I  find  a  demand  of  ''equal  rights  for  all  without  dis- 
tinction to  sex  or  race,"  and  I  also  read  that  the  very 
meeting  that  adopted  it  "protested  against  the  em- 
ployment of  women."  What  sort  of  "equal  rights" 
will  be  established  by  a  party  which  refuses  to  women 
the  equal  right  with  men  to  earn  an  honest  living? 
The  Trade  and  Labor  Assembly  also  appointed  a  com- 
mittee, which  made  a  report  complaining  of  many 
wrongs  which  labor  suffers  in  the  City  of  Chicago,  and 
among  them  this  :  "Female  labor  is  being  largely 
used  to  replace  male  labor  in  skilled  occupations, 
such  as  telegraphing,  bookkeeping,  etc."  The  radical 
mistake  of  the  labor  reformers  is  the  delusion  that  all 
persons  who  work  at  the  same  trade  are  enemies, 
snatching  bread  from  one  another.  I  used  to  think 
that  way,  but  now  I  believe  that  the  reverse  of  it  is 
the  true  doctrine.  I  believe  now  that  everybody 
should  work,  that  the  more  worker^  the  more  product, 
and  consequently  the  more  comforts  of  life  for  us  all. 

The  equal  right  of  women  to  work  at  "skilled 
labor "  is  evidence  that  we  are  emerging  from  that 
social  barbarism  which  consigned  one  part  of  them  to 
the  bondage  of  the  kitchen,  another  to  the  insipid 
languor  of  the  drawing  room,  and  another  to  a  de- 
pendence on  man's  wickedness,  so  pitiful  and  so  sad 
that  we  fear  to  look  upon  it  lest  it  show  us  the  reflec- 
tion of  our  own  guilt,  and  make  our  consciences  rebel 
within  us  at  the  savagery  of  man.      "Skilled  labor"  is 


TO  ARMS.  75 

one  of  the  blessed  agencies  that  shall  redeem  women 
from  poverty,  from  wash-tub  slavery,  and  from  sin. 
It  maybe  said  that  I  can  talk  this  way  because  women 
don't  compete  with  me  at  shoveling  coal  or  carrying 
the  hod.  That's  true;  but  I  would  talk  the  same 
way  if  I  were  a  skilled  mechanic.  If  I  were  a  tele 
grapher  or  a  bookkeeper,  I  would  hold  myself  un- 
manly to  whine  and  whimper  should  a  woman  come 
along  and  compete  with  me  at  the  trade.  Throw  open 
to  women  all  the  trades,  all  the  offices,  and  all 
the  professions,  and  make  her  independent.  I  have 
another  theory  also,  and  it  is  this  :  That  the  elevation 
of  woman  can  never  degrade  man  nor  her  prosperity 
injure  him. 

There  are  some  things  that  we  feel  to  be  wrong, 
although  we  may  not  have  sufficient  ability  to  demon- 
strate their  injustice.  '  The  principle  of  excluding  per- 
sons from  learning  or  exercising  trades  I  am  con- 
fident is  not  sound,  although  I  may  not  be  able  to  tell 
why.  I  feel  it  because  I  have  suffered  from  it.  I 
told,  in  a  former  article,  how  my  four  sons  were  for- 
bidden to  learn  any  trade  in  this  land  where  they  were 
born,  which  their  forefathers  fought  to  establish,  and 
which  their  father  fought  to  re-establish.  They  were 
forbidden  to  learn  by  the  laws  of  the  trades.  I  feel 
that  the  exclusion  was  unjust,  and  that  the  principle 
of  it  is  wrong.  My  daughter  learned  a  trade  in  spite 
of  the  doctrine,  and  it  is  now  proposed  that  she  shall 
not  exercise  it.  She  is  a  bookkeeper.  She  is  com- 
petent, has  a  good  situation,  and  although  not  yet 
seventeen  years  old,  she  feels  absolutely  independent. 
A  lot  of  social  reformers  get  themselves  together  in  a 
beer  saloon,  and  "resoloot"  that  she  ought  not  to  be 
guilty  of  earning  her  living  at  "skilled  labor,"  on  the 


76  WHEELBARROW. 

ground  that  she  works  for  less  wages  than  a  man 
would  work.  How  do  they  know?  And  whose  busi- 
ness is  it  but  her  own  ?  The  fact  is  that  she  is  getting 
higher  wages  than  some  masculine  bookkeepers  get, 
although  less  than  some  others.  That  isn't  all  ;  there 
are  plenty  of  young  men  in  town  who  would  gladly 
take  her  situation  at  less  wages  if  they  could  get  it. 
There  are  hundreds  of  "males  "who  wcild  readily 
work  at  her  desk  for  ten  dollars  a  montn  less  than  she 
receives.  The  people  who  are  so  sensitive  about 
**  competition  "  are  quite  willing  that  she  shall  com- 
pete with  some  poor  girl  as  housemaid,  or  cook  in  the 
kitchen,  but  they  are  not  willing  that  she  shall  '^com- 
pete "  with  a  man  at  a  desk.  The  most  curious  thing 
about  it  all  to  me  is,  that  those  "reformers"  who 
make  this  fussy  war  on  women  have  the  nerve  to  talk 
about  fighting  men. 


77 


MONOPOLY  ON  STRIKE. 


I  SEE  by  the  papers  that  the  retail  coal  dealers  have 
struck.  •  These  down-trodden  and  afflicted  fellow-citi- 
zens demand  a  raise  of  fifty  cents  a  ton  on  coal,  from 
the  first  day  of  November,  and,  what  is  more  to 
the  purpose,  they  are  going  to  have  it.  With  pious 
gratitude  they  see  the  merciful  Indian  Summer  fade 
away,  and  they  hail  with  hymns  of  gladness  the  snow 
clouds  coming  in  the  North.  A  week  ago  they  met  at 
the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel,  and  sang  the  doxology  of  the 
coal  monopoly,  *'0,  ye  frost  and  cold,  O,  ye  ice  and 
snow.  Bless  ye  the  Lord :  praise  him  and  magnify  him 
for  ever."  Praise  him  and  magnify  him,  an  extra  fifty 
cents  a  ton. 

It  was  further  resolved  at  said  meeting  that  any  re- 
tail coal  dealer,  wicked  and  depraved  enough  to  sell 
coal  at  a  fair  profit  after  November  ist,  should  be  boy- 
cotted by  the  association,  and  his  business  destroyed. 
A  communication  was  read  from  the  agents  of  the  coal 
monopoly  and  wholesale  dealers,  to  the  effect  that 
they  would  do  the  boycotting  ;  that  they  would  not  sell 
coal  to  any  abandoned  profligate  retailer  who  should 
refuse  to  join  the  strikers,  or  who  should  decline  to 
take  advantage  of  the  icebergs  created  by  an  all-wise 
Providence  for  the  benefit  of  coal  merchants.  I  am 
writing  this  a  few  days  before  the  first  of  Novembrr, 
but   I  write  in  the  confident  assurance  that  the  strike 


78  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

will  be  successful,  and  that  from  that  day  forward  I 
must  pay  an  extra  fifty  cents  a  ton  for  coal.  The  strikes 
of  capital  and  monopoly  never  fail ;  the  strikes  of  labor 
seldom  succeed. 

It  is  not  at  all  certain  that  this  w.ill  be  the  last 
strike  of  the  coal  dealers  this  winter.  It  is  highly 
probable,  indeed,  that  they  will  strike  for  another  fifty 
cents  a  ton  by  the  ist  of  December.  It  depends  on  the 
weather.  All  through  November  they  will  watch  with 
greedy  eyes  the  beaver  and  the  squirrel.  If  th^  beaver 
builds  his  house  with  extra  care,  and  makes  a  thicker 
wall  than  usual,  or  if  the  chipmunk  lays  in  an  extra 
store  of  nuts,  the  coal  men  will  decide  that  the  winter 
will  be  ''hard,"  and  they  will  sanctify  the  augury  by 
another  tax  on  coal.  Fifty  cents  a  ton  on  coal  isn't 
much  when  you  look  at  it  as  a  mere  question  of  arith- 
metic, a  sum  in  simple  addition ;  but  when  you  measure 
it  by  a  poor  man's  wages,  and  realize  that  it  means  a 
half  a  day's  work  for  him,  it  rises  to  the  dignity  of 
algebra,  and  if  you  reflect  that  it  includes  the  warni/ig 
of  a  corresponding  extortion  upon  all  other  necessaries, 
it  becomes  a  headaching,  heartaching  problem  of  eco- 
nomical trigonometry  that  baffles  Benjamin  Franklin. 

It  makes  the  pews  laugh  at  the  pulpit,  and  the  pul- 
pit laugh  at  the  pews  as  the  coal  dealer's  prayers  go 
up  to  heaven,  asking  for  an  early  winter  and  a  late 
spring.  For  instance,  I  see  by  last  Sunday's  paper 
that  the  lumber  dealers  had  a  meeting  the  day  before, 
and  resolved  to  strike  for  an  extra  $7.  per  thousand 
feet.  Their  strike  will  be  successful,  too,  because  they 
have  the  capital  to  make  it  win.  As  I  have  no  money 
either  to  build  houses  or  to  buy  them,  it  looks  as  if  the 
strike  of  the  lumber  dealers  is  nothing  to  me.  My 
neighbor's  affairs  can  regulate  themselves ;  it  is  enough 


MONO  POL  V  ON  STRIKE.  79 

for  me  to  mind  my  own  business.  I  used  to  practice 
that  philosophy,  but  I  think  it  cramps  the  liberal  soul, 
and  shuts  the  generous  hand.  I  have  joined  the  other 
church,  and  I  now  believe  that  my  neighbor's  affairs 
are  also  mine,  and  that  I  have  an  interest  in  every- 
thing that  happens  in  this  world. 

I  have  an  interest  in  the  strike  of  the  lumber  dealers, 
because  I  know  it  will  be  followed  by  a  strike  of  the 
nail  dealers,  and  the  brick  dealers,  and  the  glass  deal- 
ers, and  the  dealers  in  putty.  Dear  material  means 
less  building,  and  that  means  less  demand  for  work- 
men, and  less  wages  for  the  mechanic  and  the  laborer. 
This  strike  attacks  me  front  and  rear,  because  although 
I  may  not  feel  the  added  price  of  lumber  so  directly  as 
I  feel  the  extra  price  of  coal,  yet  it  hits  me  indirectly 
in  the  rent  I  pay  for  the  house  that  gives  me  shelter 
from  the  storm.  I  cannot  escape  it  any  easier  than  I 
can  escape  the  changes  of  temperature  that  follow  the 
procession  of  the  sun. 

It  does  not  equalize  conditions  to  tell  me  that  I 
have  the  privilege  to  strike  for  higher  wages.  When 
the  wild  geese  are  flying  south  what  chance  have  I  to 
strike?  '^The  stars  in  their  courses  fight  against 
Sisera."  The  weather  itself  forbids  me  to  strike,  and 
I  shall  be  thankful  if  my  employer  does  not  strike 
against  me.  What  good  is  my  old  shovel  to  attack 
monopoly  intrenched  in  the  Capitol?  Early  in  the 
war,  I  was  part  of  a  small  force  guarding  a  railroad 
bridge  in  Missouri.  Suddenly  we  were  attacked  by  a 
superior  force  of  the  enemy,  who  opened  fire  upon  us 
with  a  four  gun  battery.  We  had  no  artillery,  so  our 
Colonel  telegraphed  to  the  general  for  instructions, 
stating  that  the  enemy's  battery  was  dropping  shot 
and  shell  among  his  men,  and  that  he  had  nothing  with 


8o  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

which  to  reply.  Instantly  the  answer  came  back, 
'*Take  the  battery."  This  was  excellent  advice  pro- 
viding the  battery  would  consent  to  be  captured.  So, 
when  Capital  strikes  for  higher  prices,  the  advice  to 
Labor  to  make  a  counter  strike  for  higher  wages,  is 
merely  an  order  to  **take  the  battery."  The  odds 
against  us  are  too  great,  and  the  battery  refuses  to  be 
taken. 

The  other  day  I  read,  with  much  pleasure,  that  the 
output  of  coal  for  this  year  was  greater  than  last  year 
by  about  three  million  tons.  Left  to  the  natural  laws 
of  trade  and  production  this  would  give  us  cheaper 
coal  this  winter,  and  that  was  the  reason  I  rejoiced. 
The  coal  dealers,  in  order  to  protect  themselves  against 
the  calamity  of  this  abundant  output,  conspire  to  with- 
hold it  from  the  poor,  and  taking  the  coal  owners 
into  the  plot,  they  actually  increase  the  price  of  coal 
when  they  ought  to  lower  it,  and  lay  an  extra  tax  of 
eight  per  cent,  on  every  bushel  of  coal  that  the  work- 
ingman  must  buy. 

The  rich  man  has  already  discounted  the  extortion. 
He  has  laid  in  his  winter's  supply  at  the  summer 
prices,  but  the  poor  man  is  not  able  to  do  that ;  he 
must  buy  his  coal  from  week  to  week,  as  he  buys  his 
bread. 

As  for  me,  it  is  only  by  force  of  the  co-operative 
principle  that  I  am  able  to  enjoy  the  luxury  of  coal  at 
all.  My  sons  and  I  throw  our  wages  all  in  together, 
and  one  fire  warms  us  all.  Otherwise  I  must  give  up 
either  coal  or  bread.  I  shudder  as  I  think  of  the  long 
winter  impending  over  homes  poorer  than  mine.  I 
heard  a  lecture  once  on  chemistry,  and  the  lecturer  said 
that  coal  was  carbon  sent  here  from  the  sun,  that  it  was 
nothing  else  than  the  sun's  rays  transformed  by  natural 


MONOPOLY  ON  STRIKE.  8i 

chemistry  into  trees,  and  these  again  by  decomposition 
converted  into  coal.  He  said  that  in  this  way  the  rays 
of  the  sun,  shed  upon  the  earth  millions  of  years  ago, 
were  concentrated  and  embalmed,  to  be  liberated  by 
combustion  into  flame  and  heat,  millions  of  years  after- 
wards, for  the  use  and  benefit  of  man.  He  said  that  not 
a  ray  of  sunshine  that  fell  upon  the  earth  was  wasted, 
but  that  nature  had  provided  for  the  saving  of  it  all. 
The  strike  of  the  coal  dealers  to  keep  the  dead  rays  of 
the  sun  out  of  the  poor  man's  home,  only  proves  that 
they  would  monopolize  and  tax  the  living  sunshine  if 
they  could.  They  would  sell  the  air  we  breathe,  the 
green  upon  the  grass,  the  perfume  of  the  flowers,  and 
the  songs  of  the  birds  ;  but  let  us  rejoice  that  they  are 
not  able  to  do  that  yet.  As  the  swart  blacksmith, 
Ebenezer  Elliot,  used  to  sing  at  his  anvil,  so  I  sing  at 
my  wheelbarrow. 

Beneath  the  might  of  wicked  men 

The  poor  man's  worth  is  dying, 
But  thanks  to  God,  in  spite  of  them, 

The  lark  still  warbles  flying. 

The  unbelievers  tell  us  there  is  no  place  of  future 
punishment,  but  I  cannot  agree  to  that.  There  must 
be  a  place  '■ '  beyond  Jordan  "  where  fuel  is  cheap,  where 
sulphur  can  be  had  for  nothing,  and  where  coal  dealers 
who  strike  against  the  poor  will  be  kept  warm  for  ever. 
Else  there  would  be  a  gap  in  the  moral  universe  where 
a  big  chunk  of  justice  had  been  knocked  out. 


82  WHEELBARROW. 


GIVE  US  A  KING. 

It  sounds  conceited  to  hear  a  poor  man  boast  of 
having  Hved  a  life  of  luxury,  and  yet  I  make  that  boast. 
I  make  it,  I  trust,  with  becoming  modesty,  but  after 
all  with  pride.  The  sentiment  is  not  original  with  me; 
I  borrow  it  from  Robert  Burns,  who,  with  much  other 
valuable  instruction,  taught  me  "the  luxury  of  being 
independent."  Independent  in  soul,  he  meant,  for 
neither  of  us  was  ever  independent  in  body — that  is, 
free  from  poverty  and  the  threateningsof  its  ministers, 
cold,  hunger,  and  care.  To  be  sure,  I  was  born  rich. 
I  came  into  the  world  with  a  large  capital  in  the  shape 
of  health  and  vitality  to  my  credit  in  the  bank,  and 
although  it  has  been  greatly  wasted  and  impaired  by 
many  follies,  I  feel  that  there  is  quite  a  fund  still  sub- 
ject to  my  order.  I  have  worked  from  dawn  till  dark 
at  the  hardest  kind  of  labor,  with  pick  and  shovel  and 
wheelbarrow.  I  have  unloaded  lumber  from  ships; 
I  have  carried  bricks  and  mortar  in  a  hod,  up,  up, 
ladder  after  ladder,  as  high  as  the  top-gallant  mast  of 
a  man-of-war,  and  all  for  scanty  wages,  but  I  was 
proud  of  the  health  and  strength  that  enabled  me  to 
do  it;  and  the  consciousness  that  I  was  a  free  citizen 
whose  vote  was  equal  in  power  to  that  of  the  mil- 
lionaire, made  life  not  only  worth  living,  but  a  revelry 
of  enjoyment.  When  the  high-caste  party  challenged 
the  low-caste  party  to  fight  it  out,  I  stood  by  my  order, 
the  low-caste  party,  and  fought  it  out  on  that  line, 
not   only   all   summer,  but  for  four  summers,  and  four 


GIVE  US  A  KING.  83 

winters,  too.  When  the  bullets  knocked  me  over,  as 
they  sometimes  did,  I  let  the  doctors  patch  me  up 
again,  and  came  forward  for  another  round.  At  the 
end  of  the  dispute  it  was  my  supreme  luxury  to  "stand 
up  stiddy  in  the  ranks,"  as  the  low-caste  banner  went 
up  and  the  high-caste  banner  came  down,  and  I  saw 
the  flag  of  slavery  furled  for  ever.  It  is  now  seriously 
proposed  that  I  shall  vote  no  more. 

A  large  quantity  of  self-conceit  was  knocked  out  of 
me  some  time  ago  by  my  favorite  paper.  The  Chicago 
Tribune.  With  surprise  and  consternation  I  saw  that 
it  had  gone  over  to  the  Tory  party.  It  insisted  that  I 
should  be  degraded,  and  deprived  of  the  right  to  vote. 
This,  not  for  any  crime  that  I  had  ever  done,  but  be- 
cause of  my  caste  and  my  poverty.  In  the  creed  of 
Toryism  it  is  shameful  to  work  itx  a  living,  and  pov- 
erty is  the  unpardonable  sin.  The  argument  of  The 
Tribujie  was  contained  in  what  is  called  a  "lay  ser- 
mon," preached  by  one  of  its  editorial  writers  before 
the  Chicago  Philosophical  Society.  With  high-class 
exultation  it  proclaimed  in  big  headlines  that  the  lay 
sermon  consisted  of  "plain  truths  told  in  cold  English." 
The  description  was  only  half  correct.  The  argument 
was  "cold"  enough,  cold  and  bitter  as  the  northern 
blast;  but  the  "truths"  of  it  were  false,  in  morals,  in 
politics,  and  in  religion. 

While  I  was  reading  this  lay  sermon  three  won- 
ders grew  up  in  my  mind.  First — That  any  woman 
could  be  "  cold  "  enough  to  preach  it.  Secondly — What 
sort  of  philosophy  was  taught  in  that  Society? 
Thirdly — What  sort  of  philosophers  belonged  to  it? 
Had  they  possessed  one  spark  of  true  philosophy  they 
would  have  hung  down  their  heads  in  mortification  to 
hear  a  woman  plead  in  the  name  of  social  science  for 


84  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

the  starvation  of  the  poor  man's  child.  I  do  not  hke  to 
believe  that  any  woman  ever  said  what  I  here  quote 
from  the  report  of  that  lay  sermon  in  The  Tribune. 
It  is  unnatural  for  any  woman  to  scold  at  "Christian 
charity,"  or  any  other  kind  of  charity,  especially 
charity  to  little  children: 

Few  recognize  the  influence  of  what  we  call  "Christian 
charity  "  in  drawing  these  irresponsible  men  to  and  keeping  them 
in  our  cities.  They  gather  like  crows  around  a  carrion,  and  indus- 
trious people  say,  "  O  we  cannot  let  them  starve."  Cannot  let 
them  starve?  Why  not?  How  does  their  starving  come  to  be  any 
business  of  yours?  Oh,  but  you  cannot  let  their  children  starve! 
Why  not?  What  right  has  any  woman  to  be  the  mother  of  chil- 
dren whose  father  refuses  or  neglects  to  provide  for  them?  The 
governor  of  this  world  lets  innumerable  creatures  die  of  want.  It 
is  by  letting  some  die  that  he  teaches  others  to  live,  and  we  have 
no  right  to  interfere  with  his  arrangements. 

The  human  soul  shivers  in  the  breeze  of  such 
"cold"  blasphemy  as  that,  and  again  I  refuse  to  be- 
lieve that  a  woman  uttered  it. 

I  don't  know  that  lady  editor,  but  in  the  following 
paragraph  she  fires  very  straight  at  me,  as  if  she  had 
taken  particular  notice  of  me  when  I  first  walked  into 
the  town: 

By  what  rule  of  right  does  any  man,  entering  a  city  with  no 
more  than  his  clothes,  assume  political  equality  with  him  who  has 
dwelt  there,  and  given  time  and  labor  to  build  and  maintain  that 
city? 

Whether  this  lay  preacher  is  a  large  woman  or  a 
small  one,  is  uncertain,  but  I  defy  Mr.  Sullivan,  of 
Boston,  to  hit  a  man  harder  than  that.  I  came  into 
the  city  in  just  that  way,  with  nothing  but  my  clothes; 
that  is,  if  you  call  the  man  inside  the  clothes  nothing. 
"Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  do  you  find  the  prisoner 
guilty  or  not  guilty?"  said  a  rural  justice  of  the  peace 
at  a  recent  trial.     "  Guiltier  than  a  dog,"  replied  the 


GIVE   US  A  KING.  85 

foreman.  And  that's  the  way  I  feel,  "Guiltier  than  a 
dog."  True,  I  earned  an  honest  living,  but  with  no 
more  capital  than  a  shovel  and  a  wheelbarrow.  I  had 
the  wickedness  to  vote  right  along,  year  after  year, 
just  the  same  as  if  I  were  President  of  the  Board  of 
Trade. 

Speaking  of  city  evils,  the  lady  editor  says  that  the 
remedy  for  them  consists  in  the  passage  of  "laws  by 
which  no  one  but  the  owners  of  property  shall  have  a 
vote  in  the  city  government."  She  also  says  that  in 
municipal  elections  "no  issue  is  involved  save  that  of 
levying  and  distributing  taxes,"  and  that  "the  govern- 
ment of  a  city  is  purely  a  financial  question."  She 
also  makes  the  common  mistake  of  likening  a  city 
corporation  to  a  private  corporation  formed  for  pecun- 
iary profit,  such  as  a  railroad  company,  and  logically 
falls  into  the  advocacy  of  the  cumulative  vote.  She 
would  give  Mr.  Potter  Palmer  a  thousand  votes,  and 
me  none,  on  the  following  principle: 

If  one  owning  100  shares  in  a  railroad  has  100  votes,  while  he 
who  owns  one  share  has  but  one  vote,  and  he  who  owns  no  share 
has  no  vote,  by  what  rule  of  ethics  does  a  man  who  owns  no  share 
in  a  city  vote  as  often  or  oftener  than  he  who  owns  100  shares? 

Having  demanded  that  voting  in  cities  shall  be  the 
exclusive  privilege  of  property  owners,  she  rails  with 
passionate  eloquence  against  "the  bald  impertinence 
which  enables  any  poor  man  to  claim  or  exercise  the 
power  to  control  the  property  of  his  rich  neighbor," 
meaning  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  vote. 

It  is  a  pity  that  the  philosophers  of  the  Philosoph- 
ical Society  did  not  show  to  the  lecturer  that  the 
rights  of  persons  as  well  as  the  rights  of  things  are  in- 
volved in  city  government.  The  lives,  health,  peace, 
comfort,  and  security  of  all  the  people  are  included  in 


86  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

the  city  administration,  and  these  far  outweigh  in  so- 
cial and  political  importance  mere  considerations  of 
property.  The  education  of  all  the  children  is  also  a 
duty  laid  upon  the  city,  but  this  very  education  is,  no 
doubt,  one  of  the  wrongs  against  property  of  which 
the  preacher  complains.  Toryism  has  always  protested 
against  the  education  of  the  poor.  Let  their  children 
grow  downward  and  travel  backward  rather  than  make 
education  a  tax  upon  the  firm  of  Plutus,  Croesus,  Dives 
and  Company.  That  poor  children  should  learn  any- 
thing at  all  is  a  ''  bald  impertinence," 

Fortunately,  the  Tories  are  not  yet  in  power  in 
Chicago,  and  our  children  can  still  go  to  school.  My 
little  daughter  in  the  twelfth  class  has  already  learned 
more  about  the  constituents  of  a  city  than  this  reformer 
and  her  philosophers  appear  to  know.  She  learned  it 
in  what  she  calls  a  ''piece"  which  she  had  to  recite 
from  one  of  the  school  books.  She  declaimed  it  for 
my  instruction  a  few  nights  ago,  in  what  I  suppose  to 
be  the  style  of  Henry  Irving  when  at  his  best.  It  goes 
something  like  this: 

"What  constitutes  a  State? 
Not  high  raised  battlement,  or  labored  mound, 

Thick  wall  or  moated  gate; 
Not  mansions  proud  with  spires  and  turrets  crowned; 

Not  banks  and  boards  of  trade, 
Nor  stock-yards,  oleaginous  and  wide. 

Where  pigs  to  pork  are  made. 
Where  Bridgeport  shanties  waft  perfume  to  pride. 

No;  men,  high-minded  men, 

These  constitute  a  State." 

And  the  same  rule  applies  to  a  city;  the  bricks  and 
mortar,  the  bonds  and  mortgages,  the  piles  of  grain 
and  the  stocks  of  goods,  the  street  cars  and  the  wooden 
pavements;  all  these  constitute  but  an  inferior  por- 


GIVE  US  A  KING,  87 

tion  ot  Chicago.  The  eight  hundred  thousand  men, 
women  and  children  are  its  greater  elements,  and  their 
welfare  rises  higher  than  the  materialism  represented 
in  taxation.  Tested  by  the  instincts  of  nature  the  po- 
fitical  morality  of  this  lay  sermon  snaps  like  a  brittle 
thread.  Over  there  is  a  tenement  rookery,  and  close 
beside  it  a  millionaire's  palace,  filled  with  "all  the 
wealth  of  Ormus  and  of  Ind."  They  are  both  on  fire. 
The  firemen  care  nothing  for  the  worthless  old  tene- 
ment house,  but  direct  all  their  efforts  to  save  the 
palace  and  its  furniture.  Now  let  somebody  tell  the 
firemen  that  there  is  a  child  in  the  third  story  of  the 
rookery,  and  instantly  they  leave  the  palace  to  its  fate 
and  rush  to  save  the  child.  It  is  vain  to  assure 
them  that  the  child  is  a  vagrant's  child,  and  that  it 
ought  to  die  in  justice  to  the  taxpayers.  "Lay  ser- 
mons" are  useless  now;  through  the  fire  and  the  smoke 
they  go  at  the  peril  of  their  own  lives  to  save  the  vag- 
rant's child.  As  one  of  the  heroes  appears  at  the 
window  with  it,  and  carries  it  tenderly  down  the  lad- 
der, ten  thousand  people  cheer.  Thus  the  pulsations 
of  the  human  heart  break  to  pieces  the  mere  mathe- 
matics of  life,  and  nature  itself  proclaims  that  the 
poorest  baby  is  of  more  consequence  than  brown  stone 
fronts  four  stories  high.  Here  all  philosophies  give 
way. 

Besides  all  this,  the  workingmen  not  only  build  the 
city,  but  they  pay  the  taxes  too.  Do  the  Tories  wish 
to  discuss  that  question?  Before  the  debate  is  ended 
they  will  learn  more  of  political  economy  than  they 
will  care  to  know.  The  man  who  owns  that  factory 
round  the  corner  employs  four  hundred  men.  On 
Monday  morning  he  shows  them  raw  material  worth 
five  thousand  dollars.     They   put   their  labor    on  it, 


88  WHEELBARROW. 

and  when  Saturday  night  comes,  it  is  worth 
thirteen  thousand  dollars.  He  pays  the  men  five 
thousand  dollars,  keeping  three  thousand,  as  his 
own  reward  for  brain  work,  care,  anxiety,  in- 
terest on  capital,  taxes,  insurance,  and  the  risk  of  a 
falling  market.  Will  it  be  pretended  that  in  this  three 
thousand  dollars  the  workmen  have  not  paid  their  own 
taxes  and  their  employer's  too?  Because  the  men  who 
own  all  the  laboring  muscle  of  the  city,  and  all  the 
artisan  talent,  are  permitted  to  vote,  the  Tories 
exclaim  like  the  fools  of  Israel,  "  Give  us  a  king  to 
rule  over  us." 

So  long  as  I  have  the  ballot  I  am  the  friend  of 
order;  take  it  away  from  me  and  I  become  a  revolu- 
tionist. Toryism  in  America  is  folly.  The  boon  that 
The  Tribune  seeks  would  be  its  own  destruction.  If 
it  could  have  its  way  and  disfranchise  all  the  working- 
men,  the  value  of  the  fine  building  on  the  corner  of 
Madison  and  Dearborn  would  depreciate.  Stocks 
would  fall,  and  there  would  be  such  a  "  shrinkage  in 
values"  as  this  generation  has  not  seen.  The  ballot 
is  the  safety  valve  of  American  society.  So  long  as  I 
have  equality  of  rights  and  opportunities  I  will  never 
complain  that  my  neighbor  is  rich  while  I  am  poor. 
Take  away  the  ballot  from  the  workingmen,  and  in- 
stead of  a  police  force  you  would  need  an  army  to 
preserve  your  privileges  and  your  property.  So  long 
as  the  ballot  is  impartial,  property  is  safe  from  revo- 
lutionary violence.  The  social  inequalities  that  now 
exist  we  shall  struggle  to  remove  by  moral  forces,  and 
the  amelioration  of  the  laws,  by  lifting  up  the  poor 
without  dragging  down  the  rich.  Deprive  us  of  our 
moral  weapon,  the  ballot,  and  we  shall  then  try  to 
equalize  conditions  by  the  sword. 


89 


CONVICT  LABOR. 


I  SEE  by  the  papers  that  the  Trade  and  Labor 
Assembly  held  a  largely  attended  meeting  on  Sunday. 
Judging  by  a  report  of  the  proceedings,  the  members 
worked  very  hard  at  the  wasteful  industry  of  chopping 
sand.  Convict  labor  was  the  subject  of  debate.  This 
contemptible  question  is  unworthy  the  dignity  of  a 
Trade  and  Labor  Assembly.  Until  mechanics  and 
laborers  can  rise  to  a  grander  theme  than  competition 
with  convicts,  and  until  they  can  conquer  their  fears 
of  ^'over-production,"  they  will  accomplish  nothing 
worthy  to  be  done,  either  for  themselves  or  others. 
By  keeping  down  upon  this  lower  plane,  they  proclaim 
themselves  a  lower  caste  dependent  upon  the  charity 
of  some,  the  extravagance  of  others,  waste  by  every- 
body, and  merciful  acts  of  the  legislature  forbidding 
other  people  to  work.  They  persist  in  limiting  pro- 
duction, because  they  think  that  scarcity  is  beneficial 
to  workingmen.  It  appears  to  me  that  this  opinion 
is  a  serious  mistake,  and  that  the  very  opposite  is  true. 

The  speakers  did  not  agree  with  each  other  on  the 
question  of  convict  labor.  Mr.  McLogan  repeated  the 
old  opinion  that  convicts- should  not  be  allowed  to  work 
at  mechanical  trades,  but  should  be  confined  to  the 
''  building  of  country  roads."  "  This  plan,"  he  said, 
''would  recommend  itself  to  the  rural  districts."  In 
a  former  article  I  showed  the  unfairness  of  this  plan. 
I  showed  the  injusticeof  giving  convicts  wheelbarrows 


90  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

and  shovels,  and  setting  them  to  work  in  competition 
with  me.  I  showed  that  if  convicts  must  be  employed 
at  useful  work,  they  should  be  employed  at  that  which 
is  most  profitable,  and  if  they  must  compete  with 
labor,  they  should  compete  with  that  labor  which  gets 
the  highest  wages,  because  that  is  most  able  to  stand 
the  competition.  So  long  as  knights  of  the  wheel- 
barrow work  upon  the  roads,  they  want  convicts  em- 
ployed at  some  other  kind  of  labor^watchmaking,  for 
instance,  or  fancy  needlework,  anything  that  they 
don't  have  to  do. 

Mr.  McLogan  stated  that  the  employment  of  con- 
victs upon  thepublicroads  was  the  *' English  system. " 
I  doubt  this.  I  think  it  is  a  mistake.  I  have  traveled 
afoot  over  many  of  the  country  roads  in  England  look- 
ing for  a  job,  but  I  never  saw  any  convicts  working  on 
them.  Still,  this  is  only  negative  evidence,  and  Mr. 
McLogan  may  have  positive  evidence  the  other  way. 
What  of  it  ?  Is  the  scheme  practical  for  us  ?  If  not,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  discussion  of  it  is  a  tire- 
some chopping  of  sand.  If  what  Mr.  McLogan  calls 
the  ^' rural  districts"  are  to  be  won  over  to  the  sup- 
port of  his  plan,  they  must  be  persuaded  that  it  is 
advantageous  to  them,  and  must  be  assured  of  an 
equal  distribution  of  its  profits.  There  are  probably 
about  50,000  miles  of  public  roads  in  Illinois,  and 
about  5,000  convicts,  although  I  hope  there  are  not  so 
many.  This  would  give  the  "  rural  districts "  one 
convict  to  each  ten  miles  of  road,  making  it  necessary, 
therefore,  to  have  less  roads  or  more  convicts.  In 
1862  the  regiment  that  I  belonged  to  was  marching 
through  Tennessee,  and  every  night  when  we  went 
into  camp  a  lot  of  negroes  had  to  be  provided  for, 
who   had   left  the   plantations  to  follow   the  flag  of 


CONVICT  LABOR.  91 

liberty.  Our  colonel  distributed  those  negroes  among 
the  different  companies  as  servants — so  many  to  each 
mess.  One  evening  he  noticed  a  disturbance  in  the 
camp  and  inquired  the  cause  of  it.  <' Why,"  said  a 
disputant,  ''our  mess  ain't  got  its  full  ration  of  nig- 
ger." The  fatal  objection  to  Mr.  McLogan's  plan  is 
that  it  would  be  impossible  to  give  each  ''rural  dis- 
trict" its  full  ration  of  convicts. 

Mr.  George  Schilling  had  another  plan;  he  thought 
*'that  penitentiaries  might  be  made  self-supporting 
by  turning  them  into  farms,  whose  surplus  produce 
could  be  used  to  feed  the  poor."  The  objections  to 
this  plan  is  that  it  might  make  an  "over-production" 
of  pork  and  potatoes,  and  place  the  convicts  in  com- 
petition with  the  farmers.  Mr.  Schilling,  I  am  sure, 
will  admit  upon  reflection,  that  he  also  was  chopping 
sand.  If  there  are  in  the  Joliet  penitentiary  a  thou- 
sand convicts,  they  ought  to  be  able  to  cultivate  a  farm 
of  20,000  acres.  Now,  in  order  to  keep  them  from 
running  away,  it  will  be  necessary  to  chain  them  and 
handcuff  them.  This  will  somewhat  impair  their 
efficiency  as  farm  hands,  and  the  harvest  home  will 
show  a  very  small  quantity  of  "surplus  produce"  to 
be  distributed  among  the  poor. 

Perhaps  Mr.  Schilling  intends  to  have  the  farm 
walled  in ;  if  so,  I  am  in  favor  of  his  plan.  To  put  a 
high  wall  around  20,000  acres  of  land  would  make  a 
good  deal  of  "  work"  for  brickmakers  and  masons.  It 
would  create  employment  for  shovelers  and  hod-car- 
riers, to  both  of  which  professions  I  have  had  the 
honor  to  belong.  It  would  make  a  job  for  me,  and  this, 
according  to  a  very  popular  philosophy,  appears  to 
be  the  chief  business  of  laws  and  government,  to  give 
a  job  to  me,  and  take  it  away  from  him. 


92  WHEELBARROW. 

Since  writing  the  above  criticism  on  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Trade  and  Labor  Assembly,  the  justice  of 
my  position  has  been  vindicated  in  a  very  instructive 
way.  The  city  government  of  Washington,  impressed 
by  the  wisdom  of  Mr.  McLogan's  plan,  passed  an  or- 
dinance to  the  effect  that  convicts  must  not  compete 
with  the  aristocracy  of  mechanics,  but  must  "work 
upon  the  roads."  Thereupon  the  noble  order  of  scav- 
engers arose  in  their  might,  and  threatened  revolution. 
They  would  not  allow  unsavory  criminals  to  come 
** between  the  wind  and  their  nobility."  The  ordi- 
nance was  repealed,  and  revolution  averted. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  explain  my  position  on 
the  important  subject  of  ''organized  labor."  I  have 
been  regarded  by  many  able  and  useful  organs  of 
the  workingmen  as  an  opponent  of  Trades  Unions, 
Knights  of  Labor,  and  labor  associations  generally. 
This  is  a  mistake.  I  have  said  over  and  over  again 
that  in  the  present  pressure  of  monopoly  upon  labor, 
it  would  be  the  very  imbecility  of  resignation  if  work- 
ingmen should  not  organize  themselves  in  Trades- 
Unions  for  their  own  protection.  I  have  merely  crit- 
icized such  of  their  laws  and  regulations  as  I  thought 
were  founded  on  error  and  injustice.  I  am  not  dis- 
couraged because  the  workingmen  in  their  trades- 
unions  disagree  with  me  in  their  theory  of  social  eco- 
nomics, if  that  is  the  correct  phrase.  It  is  not  of 
much  consequence,  just  now,  whether  workingmen  in 
their  associations  are  thinking  right  or  wrong  ;  the  sub- 
lime encouragement  is  that  they  are  beginning  to  think 
at  all.     They  will  think  right  in  time. 

That  many  of  the  doctrines  now  held  by  the  trades- 
unions  will  be  radically  reversed  by  them,  I  have  no 
doubt  whatever.     The  unnatural   dogma  that  every 


CONVICT  LABOR.  93 

workingman  is  the  ''  competitor  "  of  every  other  work- 
ingman  must  go.  It  makes  the  death  or  illness  of 
every  wage-worker  a  benefit  to  all  the  rest,  a  doctrine 
which  in  its  full  development  would  make  society  a 
hideous  thing  to  live  in.  In  its  place  must  come  the 
nobler  and  the  manlier  principle  that  every  worker  is 
the  helper  and  the  friend  of  every  other.  The  trades- 
unions  will  reverse  the  opinion  that  scarcity  is  a  desir- 
able thing,  and  substitute  for  it  a  belief  in  the  blessings 
of  abundance.  They  will  see  that  not  **  over-produc- 
tion," but  *' under-production  "  means  hunger  to  the 
poor  man's  child. 

Once  upon  a  time  I  worked  on  a  railroad  at  a  place 
called  Longueil,  just  opposite  Montreal.  I  had  to 
work  from  daylight  until  dark,  and  slept  in  a  barn.  I 
got  a  dollar  a  day,  and  the  shoveling  was  hard,  for  the 
land  round  there  was  rocky  and  tough.  One  day, 
when  my  muscles  were  very  tired,  I  tried  to  sneak  up 
the  plank  with  a  light  load,  when  the  boss  roared  out, 
*' Tom,  fill  up  the  'barrow;  you  wouldn't  put  out  a 
yard  of  dirt  in  a  week."  Thinking  the  whole  matter 
over  that  night,  I  imbibed  this  industrial  heresy,  that 
in  order  to  my  happiness  the  laws  of  society  should  be 
framed,  not  so  as  to  make  more  work  for  me,  but  less. 
It  occurred  to  me  also  that  in  order  to  have  more 
food,  more  clothing,  more  wages,  and  less  work,  I 
ought  to  encourage  the  multiplication  of  all  the  com- 
forts of  life,  and  then  seek  by  proper  laws  a  fairer  dis- 
tribution of  them,  and  in  that  heresy   I  expect  to  die. 


94  WHEELBARR  O  W. 


CHOPPING  SAND. 


I  BELIEVE  there  is  somewhere  in  the  laws  of  me- 
chanics a  principle  known  as  "waste  of  power."  At 
allevents,  I  have  heard  the  phrase  used  by  workingmen, 
and  although  I  do  not  understand  its  technical  or  scien- 
tific meaning,  I  suppose  it  refers  to  some  leak  or  other 
defect  in  the  machine  or  implement,  in  consequence  of 
which  its  mechanical  efforts  are  weakened,  and  some  of 
its  labor  lost.  I  fear  that  many  of  the  efforts  of 
workingmen  to  improve  their  condition  are  in  the 
wrong  direction,  and  therefore  a  "  waste  of  power." 

Much  effort  is  being  used  to  relieve  the  mechanic 
trades  from  the  competition  of  convict  labor.  I  think 
this  effort  is  a  '^  waste  of  power. "  Lately  I  pointed  out 
the  unfairness  of  the  demand  that  convicts  be  not  per- 
mitted to  work  at  the  mechanic  trades,  but  only  "on 
the  roads."  As  a  worker  "on  the  roads,"  I  claimed 
protection  also  from  convict  competition.  It  is  gratify- 
ing to  notice  that  my  claim  has  been  conceded  by  the 
trades  as  reasonable  and  just, for  in  the  platform  adopted 
by  the  Anti- Monopoly  Convention  in  New  York,  the 
demand  that  convicts  be  compelled  to  "  work  upon  the 
roads,"  has  been  abandoned,  and  it  is  only  now  re- 
quired that  they  be  employed  at  such  labor  as  will  be 
least  in  competition  with  workingmen  outside. 

It  is  plain  as  figures  that  if  they  are  employed  at 
any  useful  or  productive  labor  at  all,  they  must  com- 


<c 


CHOPPING  SAND.  95 

pete  with  somebody,  and  in  that  case  the  spirit  of  the 
resohition  requires  that  they  be  employed  at  the  most 
expensive  occupations  ;  at  those  trades  which  pay  the 
highest  wages,  because  they  can  best  afford  to  stand 
the  competition.  Of  course  this  doctrine  will  not  be 
admitted,  and  having  made  the  circuit  of  every  useful 
trade  and  calling  in  the  land,  we  bring  up  at  last  against 
the  frank  position  we  should  have  maintained  in  the 
beginning,  namely,  that  convicts  must  be  compelled 
to  work  at  something  that  produces  nothing,  and  I 
suggest  that  they  be  employed  at  chopping  sand. 

I  have  no  patent  on  this  plan  ;  it  is  not  original  with 
me.  I  have  seen  it  actually  tried,  and  I  knowits  value. 
Once  I  was  employed  with  some  other  men  in  building 
a  house.  I  was  bricklayer's  clerk.  My  duty  was  to 
carry  up  the  bricks  in  a  hod,  while  the  bricklayer  fixed 
them  with  his  trowel,  square  and  true.  This  was  be- 
fore the  hod-carrying  business  was  prostrated  by  the 
competition  of  the  pulley  and  the  rope,  and  when  I 
used  to  find  it  a  healthful  rest  and  recreation  from  the 
monotony  and  weary  iteration  of  the  shovel  and  the 
pick.  One  day  the  boss  brought  a  young  fellow  with 
him  to  work  upon  the  job.  He  had  taken  him  as  an 
apprentice  to  the  bricklayer's  trade ;  he  gave  some  in- 
structions about  setting  the  youth  to  work,  and  then 
went  away.  The  newcomer  was  not  well  received, 
for  it  was  clear  as  print  that  unless  he  should  tumble 
off  a  scaffold  and  break  his  neck,  he  would  grow  into  a 
*' competitor "  at  the  bricklaying  business  with  the 
very  men  then  working  on  the  job.  '^What  shall  we 
set  him  at  for  a  beginning?"  said  one  of  the  men  to 
the  foreman.  *'Set  him  to  chopping  sand,"  he  an- 
swered, and  that  was  done. 

It  was  explained  to  the  newcomer  that  the  sand 


96  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

they  were  using  was  rather  coarse,  and  that  some  of 
a  finer  quality  was  required.  A  hatchet  was  given 
him,  a  bushel  or  two  of  sand  was  placed  in  front  of 
him,  and  he  was  told  to  chop  it  up  fine.  He  worked 
faithfully  and  well,  but  at  last  he  discovered  that  all 
his  labor  was  a  "waste  of  power,"  that  although  he 
might  chop  forever,  the  sand  would  remain  the  same. 
Here  then  is  the  solution  of  the  convict  labor  problem, 
set  the  convicts  to  chopping  sand  ;  this  will  give  them 
work  enough,  and  the  results  will  be  the  desired  noth- 
ing. How  much  of  the  workingmen's  efforts  to  improve 
their  social  condition  is  based  on  false  reasoning ;  how 
much  of  it  is  a  useless  ''waste  of  power,"  a  weary 
chopping  of  sand  ! 

Again,  if  the  hard  labor  of  convicts  is  intended 
merely  as  a  punishment,  nothing  can  be  more  ex- 
quisitely refined  and  cruel  than  the  labor  of  chopping 
sand.  To  work  and  produce  nothing  is  torture.  The 
divine  quality  of  labor  is  proved  by  the  pleasure  its 
product  brings.  Whether  the  profit  of  it  comes  to  the 
worker  or  not,  it  is  a  satisfaction  to  know  that  by  his 
work  something  exists  that  did  not  exist  before,  or 
exists  in  better  shape.  In  my  childhood  I  knew  an 
old  man  for  whom  my  father  used  to  work.  His  name 
was  Andrew  Martn.  Poverty  and  hardship  were  his 
lot  in  early  life,  but  in  hi^  old  age  he  had  become  very 
rich,  partly  through  some  lucky  speculations,  and 
partly  through  some  ''unearned  increment"  of  some 
town  property  which  he  had  bought  in  an  early  day. 
Riches  bring  to  a  man  the  luxury  of  eccentricity,  and 
there  are  some  men  who  from  lack  of  early  education, 
or  some  other  aptitudes,  enjoy  no  other  luxury  in  old 
age.     Andrew  Mann  was  one  of  these. 

One  day  a  poor   man    came  to  him   for  charity. 


CHOPPING  SAND.  97 

<*  Why  do  you  not  go  to  work  ?  "  he  said  ;  the  man 
answered  that  he  could  not  get  employment.  ^'  I  want 
a  man  to  turn  a  grindstone,"  said  old  Andrew;  **you 
can  have  the  job  if  you  want  it,  and  I'll  give  you  a 
dollar  a  day."  The  poor  man  gladly  accepted  the 
offer  and  went  to  work.  He  turned  the  grindstone 
merrily  under  the  old  man's  directions,  but  nobody 
came  to  grind  anything.  This,  of  course,  was  none  of 
his  business,  and  he  kept  on  turning.  At  last  he  be- 
came very  tired,  and  said,  */  Mr.  Mann,  isn't  somebody 
coming  to  grind  something?"  ^'No,"  said  his  em- 
ployer; '^but  go  ahead  with  your  work. "  Like  the 
never-ending  drip  of  water  on  the  head,  his  profitless 
toil  at  last  became  intolerable,  and  the  poor  man  fairly 
begged  his  tormentor  to  send  a  man  to  grind  an  axe, 
or  a  chisel,  or  a  hatchet,  or  anything  at  all  that  would 
show  some  benefit  from  his  toil.  But  the  old  man  was 
inexorable,  and  told  him  to  grind  on.  At  last  the  tor- 
ture became  insupportable,  and  the  man  threw  up  the 
job.  ''I  don't  obJLect  to  turning  a  grindstone,"  he 
said,  ''if  I  could  see  anything  to  grind,  but  to  grind 
away  at  nothing  will  drive  me  mad."  If  punishment 
alone  is  the  object  of  convict  labor,  and  if  it  is  good 
social  economics  that  convicts  must  not  earn  anything, 
then  let  them  turn  barren  grindstones  or  chop  sand. 


98  WHEELBARR  O  W. 


HONEST  AND  DISHONEST  WAGES. 


I  SAID  a  few  days  ago  that  although  my  wages  had 
nominally  increased  from  twenty-five  to  fifty  per  cent, 
in  the  last  thirty  years,  it  had  not  swollen  in  pro- 
portion to  the  cost  of  living,  and  that  I  find  it  harder 
to  live  now  than  in  1859.  I  acknowledge  myself  a  little 
confused  and  doubtful  about  it,  since  a  great  Chicago 
editor  has  contradicted  me  in  his  testimony  before  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor.  He  as- 
sures me  that  I  entirely  mistake  the  cause  of  my  pov- 
erty ;  that  it  is  not  because  I  do  not  get  wages  enough, 
but  because  I  don't  save  what  I  get,  but  squander  it 
in  luxury,  and  tobacco,  and  beer.  Well,  if  I  should 
save  all  of  it,  and  never  spend  a  cent,  it  would  take 
me  more  than  a  thousand  years  to  become  as  rich  as 
that  editor  ;  therefore,  L  prefer  the  evidence  of  my  own 
home  and  my  own  pockets  to  the  opulent  moralizing 
of  this  economical  philosopher.  In  his  tenderness  for 
the  workingman,  he  travels  all  the  way  to  New  York 
to  impress  upon  the  committee  the  prudent  maxim  of 
one  Dr.  Benjamin  Franklin,  that  "  a  penny  saved  is  a 
penny  earned." 

This  editor  is  one  of  those  philanthropists  who  pay 
fifty  cents  for  a  dollar's  worth  of  work,  and  make  up 
the  balance  in  good  advice  from  Poor  Richard's  alma- 


HONEST  AND  DISHONEST.  WAGES.       99 

nac.  The  question  is  not  what  we  do  with  our  money, 
but  do  we  get  what  fairly  belongs  to  us?  As  for  beer, 
I  have  never  read  any  more  glowing  tributes  to  the 
virtues  of  it  than  I  have  found  in  the  editorial  columns 
of  that  very  editor's  newspaper.  No  doubt  it  would  be 
a  good  thing  if  all  poor  men  would  abandon  beer,  and 
it  might  be  a  good  thing  too  if  all  rich  men  would  take 
the  pledge  of  Sir  John  Falstaff  to  "eschew  sack  and 
live  cleanly,"  but  this  is  a  matter  of  morals  and  pru- 
dence to  be  decided  by  the  freewill  of  each  person  for 
himself,  rich  and  poor  alike.  It  is  not  a  question  of 
wages.  In  the  inventory  of  the  great  qualities  of  a 
certain  President  of  the  United  States  I  find  recorded 
his  boundless  capacity  for  champagne.  I  think  it  would 
have  been  better  for  him  if  he  had  never  drank  cham- 
pagne; but  that  is  no  affair  of  mine.  Mr.  Editor  wjU 
not  be  allowed  to  confuse  the  wages  question  with  the 
beer  question,  for  each  must  be  discussed  on  its  own 
merits,  and  decided  by  itself. 

Speaking  for  myself,  I  have  long  since  abandoned 
the  use  of  beer,  and  all  other  intoxicating  drinks  ;  first, 
because  I  couldn't  afford  to  buy  them,  and  secondly, 
because  I  am  stronger  and  healthier  without  them. 
As  for  tobacco,  I  am  still  undecided  as  to  whether  its 
use  is  hurtful  or  beneficial.  Of  course  cigars  are  be- 
yond my  reach,  but  a  pipe  of  tobacco  has  a  soothing 
influence  upon  me,*  and  the  expense  of  it  is  nothing  in 
comparison  with  the  solace  it  brings.  I  have  a  fancy 
that  to  a  certain  extent  it  has  the  virtue  of  appeasing 
hunger.  No  doubt  a  doctor  could  easily  show  me  that 
I  am  wrong  in  this  opinion,  but  I  have  always  noticed 
that  whenever  I  have  abandoned  the  use  of  tobacco  I 
have  been  hungrier  than  I  was  before,  so  that  I  really 
believe  the  cost  of  it  is  more  than  balanced  in  the  sav- 


I  oo  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

ing  of  bread.  It  may  be  replied  to  this  that  smoking 
must  therefore  be  injurious,  as  it  weakens  appetite, 
but  this  is  no  argument  in  my  case,  because  of  all  hu- 
man blessings  a  good  appetite  is  the  smallest  benefit 
to  me.  I  have  no  use  for  it.  I  can  stand  the  expense 
of  tobacco  much  better  than  the  expense  of  a  good 
appetite. 

But  I  began  to  write  about  wages,  and  have  per- 
mitted that  editor  to  switch  me  off  to  the  side-track  of 
beer.  I  said  that  I  was  getting  a  dollar  and  a  half  a 
day.  That's  what  they  tell  me  I  get,  but  I  have  my 
doubts  about  it.  Do  I  really  get  it  ?  Last  week  I 
earned  nine  dollars  exactly — nine  silver  dollars.  I 
spent  them  for  groceries ;  did  I  get  nine  dollars'  worth  ? 
I  suspect  that  I  did  not.  I  believe  I  was  cheated  in 
the  weight  of  the  dollars,  but  I  am  quite  sure  that  the 
grocer  didn't  cheat  himself  in  the  weight  of  the  gro- 
ceries, and  I  fear  that  I  only  got  in  goods  the  value  of 
the  silver  in  the  dollars  that  I  paid  for  them.  They 
tell  me  that  the  quantity  of  silver  in  a  dollar  is  worth 
eighty  cents  in  gold,  and  no  more  ;  if  so,  then  my 
wages  is  only  one  dollar  and  twenty  cents  a  day  in 
gold.  This  is  a  frightful  discount,  and  it  goes  far  to 
explain  the  reason  why  my  dollar  and  a  half  a  day  is 
not  so  much  to  me  as  a  dollar  a  day  was  in  the  olden 
time;  because  the  extra  twenty  cents  is  not  half  enough 
to  cover  the  extra  cost  of  life. 

I  suspect  that  this  twenty  per  cent,  on  our  wages 
is  a  tax  upon  labor,  which  goes  all  into  the  pockets  of 
capital — a  tribute  to  monopoly — every  dollar  of  which 
is  profit.  I  believe  that  this  twenty  per  cent,  furnishes 
the  capital  stock  of  all  the  national  banks  in  the  coun- 
try, and  that  it  largely  contributes  to  the  unjust  dis- 
tribution  of   wealth,  which   is   the    reproach  of   our 


HONEST  AND  DISHONEST  WAGES.     loi 

statesmanship,  and  a  menace  to  the  life  of  our  institu- 
tions. It  widens  the  social  difference  between  the 
rich  man  and  me  until  we  scowl  at  one  another — I  at 
him  with  envy,  and  he  at  me  with  fear.  It  is  making 
castes  and  class  distinctions  in  this  country  that  some 
day  will  come  together  with  a  crash  like  thunder,  as 
they  did  in  France  in  1789.  A  dollar  and  a  half  a  day 
in  silver  for  me,  and  ten  thousand  dollars  a  day  in 
gold  for  Mr.  Vanderbilt,  is  illogical  in  a  state  of  society 
pretending  to  recognize  the  equality  of  us  both  ;  it  is 
the  illegitimate  offspring  of  capital  and  polluted  law. 
I  must  have  more  and  he  must  have  less,  or  the 
strained  ligament  that  holds  society  together  will 
break.  Not  by  confiscation,  nor  by  physical  violence, 
will  the  change  come — at  least  in  our  day — but  it  will 
come  that  way  in  the  next  generation,  unless  the  moral 
forces  now  at  work  shall  establish  capital  and  labor  on 
a  more  friendly  and  equitable  basis,  unless  our  social 
system  shall  be  arranged  on  juster  principles,  insuring 
a  fairer  division  of  the  profits  of  labor  between  the 
employer  and  the  employed. 

I  mentioned  my  suspicions  about  the  silver  dollar 
to  a  friend  who  understands  monetary  science  better 
than  I  do,  and  he  assured  me  that  my  argument  was 
all  unsound,  because  based  on  the  fallacy  that  dollars 
of  different  'metals  were  of  unequal  value,  and  the 
additional  fallacy  that  if  I  should  not  be  paid  in  the 
cheaper  metal  I  should  be  paid  in  the  dearer  one  at 
the  same  rate  of  wages.  He  told  me  that  all  dollars 
are  of  equal  value  by  decree  of  Congress.  He  proved 
his  case  by  the  practical  test  of  a  dollar's  worth  of 
sugar,  which  was  the  same  in  quantity,  whether  paid 
for  in  paper,  or  silver,  or  gold.  As  he  brought  the 
proof  of  his  argument  to  actual  demonstration,   I   was 


1 02  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

compelled  to  yield,  but  I  was  not  satisfied,  although 
the  concrete  evidence  of  a  dollar's  worth  of  sugar  was 
palpable  as  a  church  or  a  barn. 

I  learn  by  object  lessons  when  I  learn  anything  at 
all,  because  my  mind  soon  tires  with  metaphysics  and 
abstract  reasoning.  In  that  way  I  tried  to  solve  the 
puzzle  by  the  actual  experiment  of  a  silver  dollar 
which  I  paid  out  the  other  day  for  coffee.  It  was  a 
bright,  good-lqoking  dollar,  with  stars  and  other  na- 
tional emblems  upon  it  to  give  it  character,  and  the 
positive  statement  that  it  might  be  depended  upon  as 
"  one  dollar."  If  any  suspicion  of  short  weight,  or 
fraud,  or  adulteration  attached  to  it,  such  suspicion 
immediately  vanished  on  the  discovery  that  it  was  a 
religious  dollar,  inscribed  with  the  legend  "  In  God  We 
Trust."  Not  to  trust  in  a  pious  dollar  such  as  that 
would  be  to  lack  faith  like  an  infidel  ;  but,  after  all,  I 
believe  that  it  did  not  buy  me  a  dollar's  worth  of  cof- 
fee. As  I  walked  over  to  the  store  I  said  to  myself : 
"Does  it  make  any  difference  whether  this  coin  is 
called  a  dollar,  or  a  florin,  or  a  doubloon  ?  Will  it  buy 
me  any  more  coffee  than  the  worth  of  the  silver  in  it  ? 
The  grocer  buys  his  coffee  in  Brazil,  and  he  pays  for 
it  in  gold  ;  if  this  coin  is  worth  eighty  cents  in  gold 
and  no  more,  I  can  get  eighty  cents'  worth  of  coffee 
for  it,  and  no  more;  unless  the  government  steps  in 
and  agrees  to  make  up  the  difference  between  the  value 
of  the  cheap  dollar  and  the  dear  one.  If  the  eighty 
per  cent,  dollar  and  the  hundred  per  cent,  dollar  have 
equal  purchasing  power,  it  must,  be  because  in  some 
way  or  other  the  government  promises  to  redeem 
the  cheaper  coin.  Unless  this  promise  of  redemption 
can  be  found  somewhere  in  the  fiscal  machinery  of 
the  government,  I   could  not  possibly  get  more  than 


HONEST  AND  DISHONEST  WAGES.     103 

eighty  cents  worth  of  coffee  for  my  silver  dollar.  There 
is  no  political  economy  in  the  world  that  will  convince 
me  that  the  grocer  could  afford  to  give  me  any  more. 
I  know  that  Aladdin  gave  a  new  lamp  for  an  old  one, 
and  got  the  best  of  the  bargain,  but  that  was  an  ex- 
ceptional case,  the  only  one  in  history.  Similar  good 
luck  is  not  likely  to  happen  in  our  day.  The  transmu- 
tation of  metals  has  not  been  done  yet,  and  until  it  is 
done  we  need  not  expect  to  buy  a  hundred  cents'  worth 
of  coffee  for  eighty  cents'  worth  of  silver.  I  think  I 
am  cheated  in  the  dollars  I  get  for  my  work. 


I04  WHEELBARROW. 


PAYMENT  IN  PROMISES  TO  PAY. 


It  is  generally  conceded  that  a  promise  by  one  man 
to  pay  another  a  hundred  dollars  is  not  payment, 
but  there  are  some  persons  who  believe  that  ''Gov- 
ernment" has  the  magic  power  to  pay  ten  thou- 
sand million  dollars  with  its  own  promises  to  pay. 
They  even  expand  the  miracle  so  that  a  citizen  debtor 
can  pay  his  debts  by  the  simple  "tender"  of  one 
of  those  promises  of  "Government."  Several  gentle- 
men who  believe  in  this  impossible  alchemy  have 
criticized  my  doctrine  of  dollars,  with  tart  sarcasm 
which  reminds  me  of  crab-apple  vinegar.  I  will  turn 
the  orther  cheek  to  them  by  a  few  words  in  reply.  I  will 
first  notice  Mr.  Albert  of  Kentucky. 

Mr.  Albert  abandons  his  former  position.  He  ad- 
mits that  he  was  wrong  on  his  law  point,  and  he 
changes  his  argument  as  to  the  work  performed  by 
government  in  balancing  the  value  of  gold  and  silver 
dollars.  In  his  first  criticism  he  said  that  the  American 
grocer  could  buy  as  much  coffee  in  Brazil  with  the 
silver  dollars  he  receives  in  payment  for  it  here  as 
with  gold  dollars,  because  "he  exchanges  his  paper 
or  silver  to  the  government  at  a  nominal  discount  to 
cover  the  transfer,  and  receives  gold  in  return."  Being 
shown  his  mistake  he  now  says  that  the  government 
"does  not  do  it  directly,  but  indirectly,  by  receiving 
gold,  silver,  or  paper  at  the  same  value  and  indis- 
criminately for  taxes  and  duties."     "Upon  this  hint 


FA  YMENT  IN  PROMISES  TO  PA  V.      105 

I  spake,"  said  Othello,  and  I  think  that  Mr.  Albert 
spoke  those  words  on  a  hint  from  me,  but  they  must 
vexatiously  entangle  him  because  in  the  preceding 
sentences  he  impressed  it  upon  me  that  '^  paper  shall 
not  be  accepted  in  payment  of  duties."  This,  he  was 
careful  to  remind  me,  is  printed  on  the  reverse  side  of 
the  greenbacks  themselves.  Mr.  Albert  calls  my  ar- 
guments ''nebulous."  No  doubt  they  are  nebulous 
to  him,  and  so  I  fear  is  every  kind  of  knowledge,  for 
his  brain  is  wrapped  in  clouds  ;  yet  he  frankly  admits 
that  he  is  "a.  well-informed  man." 

How  queer  it  is  for  "a  well-informed  man  "  to  say 
that  "a  promise  to  pay  without  any  specified  time  for 
payment  is  of  no  value,"  and  that  "  no^nina/  value  is 
a  term  unknown  in  political  economy,  for  it  cannot  be 
defined."  I  confess,  as  Mr.  Albert  kindly  says,  that  it 
is  a  subject  of  which  I  know  little.  I  have  had  no 
time  to  study  political  economy,  but  in  the  few  books 
on  the  ''dismal  science,"  which  it  has  been  my  priv- 
ilege to  read,  the  term*  is  often  mentioned,  and  this 
must  be  my  excuse  for  using  it.  Jevons  on  "  Money," 
page  75,  treats  of  the  distinction  between  the  metallic 
value  and  the  no??iinal  value  of  coins.  The  statutes  of 
the  United  States  frequently  speak  of  the  '^nominal 
value"  of  the  money  we  are  using  now.  It  is  a  pity 
that  our  statesmen  should  have  been  so  ignorant  as  to 
speak  of  "nominal  value"  in  the  very  laws  of  the 
land.  Had  they  consulted  "a  well-informed  man" 
he  would  have  warned  them  that  ''  nojninal  value  is  a 
term  unknown  in  political  economy  for  it  cannot  be 
defined." 

A  critic  who  makes  those  fundamental  mistakes  is 
not  entitled  to  any  further  reply.  We  cease  to  dis- 
cuss the  rules  of  rhetoric  with   a  man   as   soon  as  we 


1 06  WHEELBARRO  W. 

discover  that  he  has  not  yet  mastered  the  alphabet  ; 
so  the  man  who  shows  that  he  has  not  yet  learned  the 
alphabet  of  finance  is  not  entitled  to  the  tribute  of  ar- 
gument which  we  extend  to  a  capable  disputant.  I 
must  decline  therefore  to  notice  the  rest  of  Mr.  Al- 
bert's errors,  except  incidentally  in  my  reply  to  that 
comical  person,  Mr.  J.  Allen,  of  Wyoming  Territory, 
who  has  danced  into  the  controversy  looking  very 
much  like  little  Breeches  in  the  poem,  ^'peeart,  and 
chipper,  and  sassy." 

Once  upon  a  time  a  pugnacious  Arkansaw  traveler 
came  suddenly  upon  a  very  exciting  tournament. 
Goaded  by  a  love  of  glory,  he  inquired,  *'  Is  this  a  free 
fight?"  They  told  him  it  was.  ''Count  me  in,"  he 
said ;  and  in  he  went.  After  the  lapse  of  a  minute 
and  a  half,  he  again  remarked,  ''  Is  this  a  free  fight  ?" 
They  answered,  "Yes."  ''Count  me  out,"  he  said, 
and  left  the  meeting  without  waiting  for  the  benedic- 
tion. Mr.  J.  Allen  rushes  with  kindred  bravery  and 
want  of  discretion  upon  a  like  .experience.  He  knows 
little  enough  to  say  that  "  '  Wheelbarrow '  entirely  over- 
looks the  real  cause  of  the  depreciation  of  silver  dol- 
lars ;  it  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  lack  of  the 
legal  tender  qualification  necessary  to  make  it  a  bona- 
fide  dollar."  He  has  not  yet  got  far  enough  in  his 
alphabet  to  know  that  silver  dollars  are  a  legal  tender, 
and  yet  he  has  the  nerve  to  criticize  and  explain  the 
American  financial  system. 

A  finance  critic  who  does  not  know  that  the  silver 
dollars  of  his  own  country  are  a  legal  tender  could 
hardly  be  historically  accurate,  and  he  is  not  to  be 
held  responsible  for  the  following  mistake :  "  The  first 
sixty  million  dollars  of  greenbacks  issued  by  this  gov- 
ernment  were  a  legal    tender   in   the  payment   of  all 


PAYMENT  IN  PROMISES  TO  PAY:      107 

dues,  and  were  in  no  sense  based  upon  gold,  and  a 
better  money  was  never  uttered."  Now,  it  is  a  curious 
fact  that  this  celebrated  sixty  million  dollars  was  not 
legal  tender  at  all.  Of  course,  the  good  or  bad  char- 
acter of  those  dollars  is  a  matter  of  opinion.  Mr. 
Allen  thinks  "a  better  money  was  never  uttered."  I 
think  worse  money  has  been  uttered,  but  that  was 
very  bad.  Speaking  of  that  famous  sixty  millions,  the 
American  Cyclopaedia  makes  the  following  flattering 
remarks.  It  says,  those  notes  "did  not  enter  freely 
into  circulation,  and  there  were  instances  of  soldiers 
having  to  submit  to  the  loss  of  a  discount  on  those  re- 
ceived for  pay  of  from  four  to  twenty  per  cent,  in  the 
District  of  Columbia."  **  Better  money  was  never 
uttered,"  says  Mr.  Allen,  although,  at  Washington, 
where  it  was  made,  soldiers  paid  in  that  money  for 
defending  the  Capitol  itself,  were  cheated  by  it  from 
four  to  twenty  per  cent. 

Listen  to  this  :  '*  A  nickel,"  says  Mr.  Allen,  "which 
is  neither  gold  nor  silver,  nor  redeemable  i7i  either ,  will 
purchase  just  as  much  coffee  as  five  cents  in  silver." 
Here,  again,  he  reasons  upside  down.  The  nickel 
does  that  just  because  it  is  redeemable.  On  that  sub- 
ject I  find  in  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States 
the  few  feeble  remarks  following,  that  is  to  say  : 

"The  five-cent  and  three-cent  copper  nickel,  and  one-cent 
bronze  coins  shall  be  a  legal  tender  at  their  7tominal  value  for 
any  amount  not  exceeding  twenty-five  cents  in  any  one  payment,  and 

"  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  required  to  redeem  in  law- 
ful money  all  copper,  bronze,  copper-nickel,  and  base  metal 
coinage  of  the  United  States." 

The  faith  of  the  people  that  they  will  be  redeemed 
according  to  the  promise  of  the  law'  gives  them  cur- 
rency,  exactly   as   faith   gives  value   to   milk  tickets. 


1 08  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

This  morning  I  was  roused  from  slumber  before  day- 
light by  the  milkman  '' rapping,  rapping  at  my  cham- 
ber door."  I  got  up  and  let  him  in.  He  gave  me  a 
quart  of  milk,  and  I  gave  him  a  paper  ticket,  about 
the  size  of  a  silver  dollar.  At  certain  times  I  buy  a 
dollar's  worth  of  tickets,  and  file  them  away  for  use 
when  wanted.  These  tickets  are  not  milk,  they  are 
merely  securities  redeemable  in  milk.  Although  they 
are  not  ^^  legal  tender''  I  have  faith  in  them,  because 
the  dairyman  has  never  failed  to  redeem  them  at  their 
nominal  value,  a  pint  of  milk  for  a  red  ticket,  and  a 
quart  for  a  yellow  one.  If  he  should  fail  in  business, 
my  milk  tickets  on  hand  would  be  like  the  paper  money 
of  a  broken  government — worthless.  But  the  metal 
money  of  a  country  up  to  its  full  bullion  value,  never 
fails.  The  coins  of  Alexander  the  Great  have  sur- 
vived a  hundred  nations,  and  are  good  to-day. 

The  promise  of  redemption  gives  the  greenbacks 
value.  This  promise  is  not  only  printed  on  the  face 
of  them,  but  has  been  solemnly  written  by  Congress 
in  the  law  of  March,  i86g.  It  contradicts  the  asser- 
tion that  they  are  dollars,  and  this  denial  has  been 
enrolled  among  the  judgments  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States.      That  tribunal  has  decided  that, 

"  The  dollar  note  is  a  promise  to  pay  a  dollar,  and  the  dollar 
intended  is  the  coin  dollar  of  the  United  States.  These  notes  are 
obligations,  they  bind  the  national  faith.  They  are  therefore 
strictly  securities." 

On  that  principle  greenbacks  are  exempt  from 
taxation.  The  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  also, 
on  the  ground  that  they  are  not  dollars,  but  merely 
securities  of  the  United  States,  and  therefore  not 
taxable  either  by  the  nation,  or  by  any  city,  or  county, 
or  State. 


FA  YMENT  IN  PROMISES  TO  PA  V.      109 

I  feel  like  making  an  apology  for  degrading  con- 
troversy by  answering  the  statement  of  Mr.  Allen  that 
if  the  world  were  to  demonetize  gold,  a  gold  dollar 
would  be  worth  only  five  cents,  and  the  equally  wild 
assertion  that  it  would  be  worth  about  fifteen  cents 
if  the  United  States  were  to  demonetize  gold.  The 
American  gold  dollar  contains  25.8  grains  of  gold. 
According  to  Mr  Allen  the  value  of  the  metal  is  fifteen 
cents,  and  the  United  States  by  coining  it  into  a  dollar 
adds  an  extra  value  to  it  of  eighty-five  cents.  Do  I 
not  owe  an  apology  to  the  reader  for  noticing  such 
exuberant  error  ? 

Coinage  adds  the  merest  trifle  to  the  value  of  the 
metal  coined.  -  This  is  proven  by  the  fact  that  gold 
bullion  is  nearly  equal  in  value  to  the  same  quantity 
of  gold  in  eagles  or  in  sovereigns.  I  think  the  four 
hundred  shekels  of  silver  paid  by  Abraham  for  the 
field  of  Machpelah  were  not  coins,  for  they  were 
weighed^  not  counted,  and  yet  they  were  ''  current 
money  with  the  merchant."  When  the  sons  of  Abra- 
ham passed  under  the  dominion  of  Rome,  and  those 
shekels  bore  the  ' '  image  and  superscription  "  of  Caesar, 
their  value  relatively  to  the  other  silver  round  about 
them  was  not  changed.  The  coining  of  them  simply 
dispensed  with  the  trouble  of  weighing  them.  The 
*' image  and  superscription"  merely  said  to  the  mer- 
chants, ''You  need  not  weigh  this  piece;  Caesar  hath 
already  weighed  it,  and  vouches  that  it  contains  so 
many  grains  of  silver. "  And  wherever  those  shekels 
are  to-day,  whether  in  shillings  or  in  dollars,  whether 
bearing  the  image  of  Queen  "Victoria,  or  our  own 
Goddess  of  Liberty,  the  ''image  and  superscription" 
upon  them  only  testify  to  their  weight.  Whatever 
additional  value  they  obtain  by  reason  of  their  ''legal 


1 1  o  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

tender''  quality,  is  a  dishonest  value,  the  measure  of 
their  usefulness  in  cheating  creditors  and  poor  men 
out  of  their  wages. 

There  is  a  playful  innocence  in  Mr.  Allen's  fairy- 
like vows  of  what  he  would  do  with  gold  and  silver 
had  he  the  power.  He  would  reverse  the  laws  of  the 
universe,  and  make  water  run  up-hill  instead  of  down. 
He  would  demolish  what  he  calls  the  "idol"  gold, 
and  erect  a  paper  "idol"  in  its  place.  He  would 
make  gold  inferior  to  silver,  and  then  "base  both  of 
them  upon  a  paper  standard,  making  them  redeemable 
in  United  States  Treasury  Notes,  and  then  demonetize 
both  of  them."  Many  similar  miracles  he  would  per- 
form b}'  the  same  power.  All  this  is  like  the  boasting 
of  the  poetical  child, 'who  delights  us  with  airy  prom- 
ises of  what  impossible  things  he  would  do  if  he -were 
King  of  France. 


Ill 


THE  WORKINGMAN'S  DOLLAR. 


The  praiseworthy  effort  to  prove  that  a  pound  of 
coffee  weighing  sixteen  ounces,  and  a  pound  of  coffee 
weighing  fourteen  ounces,  can  be  made  equal  in  value 
by  Act  of  Congress  is  still  going  on.  I  am  thankful 
to  the  finance  teachers  who  have  kindly  taken  me  in 
hand,  although  I  fear  that  I  shall  never  be  able  to 
understand  the  '^laws  of  money."  1  go  down  meekly 
to  the  foot  of  the  class,  and  acknowledge  myself  the 
dullest  pupil  in  the  school.  I  cannot  yet  see  that  the 
silver  dollars  I  get  for  my  wages,  each  worth  eighty 
cents,  are  just  as  valuable  as  gold  dollars  worth  a  hun- 
dred cents  a  piece,  and  I  don't  believe  they  are. 

In  a  friendly  criticism  Mr.  Albert  of  Kentucky  gives 
me  a  lesson,  and  he  tries  with  patient  good  temper  to 
make  the  matter  clear  as  mud,  in  this  way :  He 
says — '^I  would  first  advise  *  Wheelbarrow,'  the  next 
time  he  gets  hold  of  a  greenback,  to  read  it  carefully. 
He  will  find  the  words  ^on  demand,' which  are  a 
distinctive  feature  of  redeemable  money,  left  out.  Any 
lawyer  will  tell  him  that  a  promise  to  pay,  without 
specified  time  of  payment,  is  of  no  value."  This  leads 
me  to  suspect  that  Mr.  Albert  is  a  lawyer,  which  gives 
him  a  great  advantage  in  the  argument.  It  is  very 
easy  for  him  to  refer  me  to  a  lawyer  for  information 
as  to  the  legal  obligation  of  promises  to  pay,  but  I 
cannot  afford  to  get  knowledge  in  that  way.     As  it 


1 1 2  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

would  cost  me  a  week's  wages  and  a  dollar  over  to 
speak  to  a  lawyer  in  Chicago,  I  went  down  to  the 
public  library  and  got  a  look  at  some  law  books  on 
'*  Contracts,"  and  they  all  said  that  a  promise  to  pay 
without  specified  time  for  payment  is  a  legal  and  moral 
obligation  to  pay  the  amount  stated,  of  so  much 
^' value"  that  it  will  be  enforced  at  law.  This  dis- 
courages me  at  the  very  start  because  it  makes  me 
doubt  the  wisdom  of  my  teacher.  If  Mr.  Albert's 
finance  is  as  bad  as  his  law,  I  fear  that  his  instruction 
is  of  ''no  value." 

Speaking  of  the  greenbacks,  Mr.  Albert  says :  ''For 
ten  years  the  United  States  made  no  pretensions  to 
exchange  them  for  gold  or  silver,  and  yet  they  had 
a  value  varying  from  par  to  fifty  per  cent,  discount. 
What  gave  them  that  value?"  "Was  it  faith?"  he 
says,  "or  the  result  of  some  natural  law?"  and  he 
advises  me  at  my  leisure  to  "study  out  that  conun- 
drum." Well,  I'll  wrestle  with  it,  and  while  I'm 
working  it,  will  he  tackle  this  one :  What  gave  them 
the  discount  ? 

My  first  guess  at  the  conundrum  is  this:  Faith 
gave  them  value,  and  doubt  gave  them  discount;  just 
as  they  gave  value  and  discount  to  the  legal  tenders 
of  the  Confederate  States.  The  value  and  discount 
were  regulated  by  the  chances  of  their  payment  in 
gold,  and  the  time  of  such  payment.  I  was  in  several 
battles  down  South,  and  I  noticed  that  whenever  we 
got  whipped  the  greenbacks  got  discount,  and  the  gray- 
backs  got  value,  and  vice  versa.  When  Sherman  took 
Atlanta  the  graybacks  got  so  much  discount  that  they 
have  never  had  much  value  since. 

The  ancient  assumption  that  a  fish  put  into  a  vessel 
of  water  adds  nothing  to  the  weight  of  the  whole,  is 


THE   WORKINGMAJSI'S  DOLLAR.         113 

adopted  by  Mr.  Albert,  and  he  coolly  remarks  :  "  As  to 
the  reason  why  the  laborer's  eighty  cent  silver  dollar 
will  buy  as  much  as  the  boss's  one  dollar  gold  piece  ;  " 
as  if  that  fact  were  proved,  when  it  is  the  main  point 
in  dispute.  The  reason,  however,  is  pure  magic ;  here 
it  is  :  "All  things  have  two  values — the  intrinsic  value 
and  the  exchangeable  value ;  money  owes  its  value 
to  both.  The  government  can  regulate  the  exchange 
value,  it  cannot  affect  the  intrinsic  value."  That  is  to 
say,  that  money  has  a  real,  genuine  value  of  itself,  in- 
dependent of  the  government,  and  a  false  value  given 
it  by  Act  of  Congress.  What  Mr.  Albert  probably 
means  is  that  government  gives  a  nominal  value  to 
money,  and  that  it  circulates  at  that  value  within  its 
own  dominions.  All  this  is  but  an  evasion  of  the  true 
question,  which  is  :  Ought  governments  to  give  a  no- 
minal value  to  money  different  from  its  real  value, 
and  thus  cheat  all  men  who  work  for  wages  ?  Govern- 
ment can  give  an  exchangeable  value  to  the  yardstick, 
and  decree  that  thirty  inches  shall  be  a  yard,  and  it 
will  be  so,  but  government  can  never  make  ten  yards 
of  calico  measured  by  the  new  yardstick  equal  in 
length  or  value  to  ten  yards  measured  in  the  old  way. 
I  am  confident  that  Mr.  Albert  is  in  a  whirl  of  con- 
fusion on  the  currency  question,  or  he  would  not  give 
us  whole  sentences  utterly  destitute  of  meaning,  like 
this  :  *'The  government,  by  affording  facilities  to  ex- 
change silver,  paper,  nickel,  and  copper  at  par,  or 
nearly  so,  it  makes  their  exchangeable  value  equal  to 
that  of  gold,  after  it  has  placed  its  stamp  upon  them." 
At  par  with  what?  "That  pig,"  said  the  seller,  "will 
weigh  200  pounds  on  an  average.^''  Does  Mr.  Albert 
mean  silver,  nickel,  copper,  paper,  "at  par"  with  one 
another,  or  with  gold  ?  And  if  either  or  both,  at  what 


1 1 4  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

standard  ?  Ounce  for  ounce,  or  bulk  for  bulk  ?  This 
obscure  sentence  is  the  most  important  in  his  article, 
because  he  bases  all  his  argument  upon  it,  quaintly 
remarking  :  "This  explains  why  the  silver  dollar  will 
buy  as  much  as  the  gold  one,  and  also  why  a  grocer 
can  buy  as  much  coffee  in  Brazil  with  the  silver  he 
receives  in  payment  here." 

'here  is  a  painful  headache  in  all  that  inconsequent 
reasoning  of  Mr.  Albert.  That  very  miracle  is  just 
what  the  grocer  cannot  perform.  He  cannot  buy 
coffee  in  Brazil  and  pay  for  it  in  silver  dollars  at  par 
with  gold  dollars,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  gold 
dollars  and  silver  dollars  are  not  of  equal  value.  In 
the  market  rep®rts  of  the  newspapers  I  find  silver 
quoted  like  wheat,  or  oil,  or  pork.  Nor  can  the 
government  help  the  grocer  to  the  value  of  a  cent.  It 
will  not  even  try  to  help  him,  and  Mr.  Albert  makes 
an  inexcusable  blunder  when  he  says  that  the  grocer 
' '  exchanges  his  paper  or  silver  to  the  government,  at 
a  nominal  discount  to  cover  the  transfer,  and  receives 
gold  in  return."  He  does  nothing  of  the  kind.  The 
government  will  not  give  gold  dollars  for  silver  dollars. 
On  the  contrary,  the  government  actually  buys  silver 
in  the  market,  at  the  current  price,  whatever  it  is, 
then  takes  eighty  cents  worth  of  it,  and  stamps  it,  ''One 
dollar  :  In  God  We  Trust,"  and  makes  a  clear  profit  of 
twenty-five  per  cent.  This  profit  is  a  tax  upon  the 
wages  of  the  workingman,  who  is  compelled  to  take 
these  dollars  at  their  apocryphal  or  ''exchangeable" 
value,  instead  of  at  their  real  value.  "To  increase 
the  weight  of  the  silver  dollars,"  says  Mr.  Albert, 
would  make  them  "heavier  to  carry  about."  That's 
true,  but  I'll  try  and  stagger  along  under  mine.  As 
Mr.   Albert  is  in  error  as  to   his  facts,  of  course  his 


THE   WORKINGMAN'S  DOLLAR.         115 

arguments  founded  on  them  partake  of  their  defects, 
and  are  valueless.  If  government  can  give  an  ''ex- 
changeable "  value  to  silver  dollars  and  make  them 
equal  to  gold  dollars,  why  will  it  not  exchange  one  for 
the  other  ?  Why  repudiate  its  own  work,  and  dishonor 
its  own  coinage  ? 

1  o  be  sure,  I  can  go  into  a  store  and  buy  a  dollar's 
worth  of  coffee,  and  the  grocer  will  give  me  the  same 
quantity,  whether  I  pay  him  a  gold,  or  silver,  or  paper 
dollar  ;  but  this  apparent  equality  in  value  ought  not 
to  deceive  anybody.  It  is  evident  that  where  payment 
can  be  made  in  different  coins  of  the  same  denomination 
but  of  different  metallic  values,  the  merchant  must  fix 
the  price  of  his  goods  on  the  presumption  that  he  will 
be  paid  for  them  in  the  cheapest  currency ;  if  he  gets 
the  dearer  coins  occasionally,  so  much  the  better,  but 
he  cannot  afford  to  count  on  them.  During  the  war 
the  prices  pf  goods  went  up  as  the  value  of  greenbacks 
went  down.  It  could  not  be  otherwise ;  and  when  I 
take  my  nine  dollars,  which  I  get  as  wages  every 
Saturday  night,  and  buy  household  comforts  with  it, 
I  find  fifteen  or  twenty  percent.,  and  sometimes  more 
than  that  added  to  the  price  of  nearly  everything  I  buy. 

If  the  greenback  is  of  ''no  value"  because  the 
words  "  on  demand  "  are  left  out  of  its  promise  to  pay, 
why  does  Mr.  Albert  contend  that  it  is  just  as  good  as 
gold  ?  And  if  it  is  of  "  no  value  "  for  any  reason,  why 
should  it  be  imposed  on  me  as  wages  for  my  work  ? 
The  value  of  any  promise  in  morals,  in  business,  or  in 
politics  depends  entirely  on  the  size  of  the  chance  that 
it  will  be  redeemed.  The  value  of  a  greenback  dollar, 
or  a  silver  dollar,  or  a  brass  dollar,  depends  on  the 
chance  that  it  will  be  redeemed  in  the  dearest  money 
current  in  its  life  time,  and,  at  present,  this  is  gold.   If 


1 1 6  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

silver  dollars  worth  eighty  cents  apiece,  and  gold 
dollars  worth  a  hundred  cents  apiece  appear  just  now 
to  circulate  at  mercantile  par  with  each  other  in  or- 
dinary transactions,  it  is  because  there  is  a  working 
promise  somewhere  in  the  machinery  of  the  govern- 
ment to  pay  the  twenty  cents.  Where  is  it  ?  Let  us  see. 
Mr.  Albert  kindly  advises  me  to  read  the  green- 
back, and  I  shall  find  the  words  ^'On  demand"  left 
out.  Will  he  '' change  works"  with  me  and  read  the 
legend  on  the  silver  certificate,  and  he  will  find  the 
words  '^on  demand"  left  in ;  but  it  is  very  careful  not 
to  say,  ^'dollars  payable  to  bearer  on  demand,"  but 
silver  dollars.  On  the  reverse  side  of  it,  that  in- 
vidious dictiilction  is  apologized  for,  and  partly  cured 
in  the  following  agreement:  ''This  certificate  is 
receivable  for  customs,  taxes,  and  all  public  dues." 
Here  is  the  working  promise  to  make  up  the  difference 
in  value  between  the  silver  dollar  and  the  gold  dollar. 
The  promise  appears  to  me  to  be  reliable  enough  within 
the  sphere  of  the  sum  total  of  the  public  revenues, 
and  perhaps,  a  little  beyond  that  sum ;  but  it  is  a 
precarious  reliance  for  the  laboring  man,  because  it  is 
liable  to  be  broken  at  any  time  by  law  or  by  war. 


117 


THE  PAPER  DOLLAR. 


Mr.  S.,  of  Lincoln,  California,  has  criticized  my 
complaint  against  the  silver  dollar.  He  says  that  I 
offer  "only  one  argument  against  continuing  the  coin- 
age and  use  of  the  dollar,  namely — there  is  not  enough 
silver  in  it."  This,  he  says,  ''is  about  the  only  argu- 
ment founded  on  fact,  advanced  by  any  opponent  of 
the  monetization  of  silver.  Very  well,  the  only  argu- 
ment "  founded  on  fact "  against  the  last  half  ton  of 
coal  I  bought  was  tHat  it  contained  only  seven  hun- 
dred and  fifty  pounds.  What  further  argument  is  ne- 
cessary ?  The  coal  merchant  gave  troy  weight  in  mis- 
take for  avoirdupois.  The  quality  of  the  coal  was  good 
enough.  I  complain  not  of  that.  So  the  nine  silver 
dollars  I  got  for  my  week's  wages  were  good  silver, 
but  they  were  deficient  in  weight.  That's  all  I  com- 
plain of. 

The  weakness  of  my  argument,  says  Mr.  S.,  "is 
apparent  upon  reflecting  that  there  is  not  a  dollar's 
worth  of  paper  in  a  greenback  or  bank-note;  yet 
the  paper  dollar  will  buy  as  much  as  the  gold  dol- 
lar." The  weakness  of  this  argument  consists  in  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  paper  dollar.  As 
to  the  pieces  of  paper  that  travel  about  as  dollars,  I 
will  do  them  the  justice  to  say  that  they  make  no 
claim  to  be  anything  more  than  promissory  notes.  I 
had  one  of  them  this  morning :    it  was  my  only  mone- 


1 1 8  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

tary  possession  in  this  world,  and  1  squandered  it  at 
the  meat-market,  but  before  parting  with  it  I  read 
carefully  the  legend  on  it — "  The  United  States  will 
pay  to  bearer  one  dollar."  This  promise  I  traded  for 
beef.  I  had  no  money  to  pay  for  the  beef,  but  the 
butcher  accepted  the  printed  promise  of  the  United 
States  to  pay  for  it,  and  I  walked  off  with  my  Sunday's 
roast.  Mr.  S.  thinks  that  the  "  paper  dollar "  buys 
beef  because  of  its  own  value  ;  and  he  reveals  in  that 
queer  delusion  the  weakness  of  his  own  position. 

When  anybody  tells  Mr.  S.  that  the  reason  why 
the  paper  promise  to  pay  a  dollar  will  buy  beef,  is 
because  it  is  based  on  gold,  and  can  be  exchanged 
for  gold,  he  replies,  "Is  it  possible  that  any  con- 
siderable number  of  those  who  make  this  reply  do 
not  know  that  the  silver  dollar  can  also  be  exchanged 
for  gold,  or  for  silver  certificates,  that  are  equal  to  gold 
in  purchasing  power?"  With  shame  I  confess  that  I 
am  so  ignorant  as  not  to  know  that  the  silver  dollars 
can  also  be  exchanged  for  gold  ones,  and  I  will  be 
thankful  if  Mr.  S.  will  tell  me  where  this  wonderful 
miracle  is  done.  Do  they  perform  it  at  the  United 
States  Treasury  ?  If  not,  will  they  do  it  at  the  Mint 
in  California?  If  Mr.  S.  knows  the  magician  who  per- 
forms this  valuable  alchemy,  will  he  kindly  introduce 
me  to  him  ?     I  should  like  to  win  his  friendship. 

"  Or  for  silver  certificates."  This  unlucky  phrase 
condemns  Mr.  S.'s  argument,  because  if  gold  dollars 
and  silver  dollars  are  of  equal  value,  then  gold  certifi- 
cates and  silver  certificates  must  also  be  equal  for 
similar  amounts,  and  silver  dollars  could  be  exchanged 
for  gold  certificates ;  but  the  fact  is,  they  can  only  be 
exchanged  for  silver  certificates,  because  of  their  in- 
ferior value.     All   decrees  of  legislatures  regulating 


THE  PAPER  DOLLAR.  119 

the  purchasing  power  of  money,  or  the  selling  value 
of  goods,  are  void  by  the  constitution  of  nature  and 
society.  They  are  futile  as  the  law  which  declares 
how  many  bushels  of  wheat  shall  grow  on  an  acre  of 
land,  and  how  many  pounds  of  wool  a  sheep  shall  wear 
in  his  overcoat.  If  silver  dollars  and  gold  dollars  were 
equal,  surely  the  Government  would  not  make  an}'^  dis- 
tinction between  them.  Let  Mr.  S.  test  the  Treasury, 
and  he  will  see  his  golden  vision  vanish.  Let  him 
deposit  ten  thousand  silver  dollars  with  the  Treasurer 
of  the  United  States,  and  ask  him  for  a  gold  certificate 
of  that  amount,  and  the  very  messenger  boys  will 
laugh  at  him.  Let  him  ask  for  a  certificate  to  that 
amount  simply  in  dollars,  without  specifying  the 
metal,  and  the  result  will  be  the  same.  His  certifi- 
cate will  be  very  careful  to  say  that  his  deposit  was 
in  silver  dollars,  and  the  Government  will  pay  back 
nothing  else  when  the  certificate  is  returned. 

Mr.  S.  asks  a  plain,  straightforward  question, 
"  Does  *  Wheelbarrow '  believe  it  would  be  good  to 
retire  the  silver  dollar,  or  would  he  have  more  sil- 
ver put  in  it?"  He  shall  have  a  straightforward  an- 
swer. I  believe  that  if  more  silver  were  put  in  it,  it 
would  do  "good" — to  me,  and  it  was  purely  from  a 
standpoint  of  self-interest  that  my  attack  upon  the  sil- 
ver dollar  was  made.  As  a  man  working  for  wages,  I 
confess  that  I  am  not  satisfied  with  the  weight  of  sil- 
ver in  the  dollars  I  get  for  my  labor,  and  I  would  like 
to  see  the  metal  in  the  silver  dollar  increased  until  it 
reaches  the  value  of  a  dollar  in  gold.  To  tell  me  that 
a  silver  dollar  worth  eighty  cents  will  purchase  as 
much  for  me  as  a  gold  dollar  worth  a  hundred  cents, 
is  to  trifle  with  my  common  sense  ;  it  is  like  persuad- 
ing me  that  fourteen  ounces  make  as  valuable  a  pound 


1 20  '  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

of  coffee  as  sixteen  ounces,  and  that  it  is  a  superstition 
to  believe  that  there  is  any  difference  between  them. 

If  I  accept  Mr.  S.'s  invitation  to  wander  off  with 
him  into  a  discussion  of  the  good  or  evil  policy  of 
"  retiring "  silver  dollars,  both  of  us  will  soon  be 
floundering  out  of  our  depth  in  the  flood  of  jargon  in- 
vented by  currency  tinkers  and  quack  statesmen  to 
bewilder  a  lot  of  dupes  like  Mr.  S.  and  me.  What 
gibberish  is  this  about  "retiring"  anything  that  is  of 
actual  value  to  mankind  ?  Nature  has  planted  the  ore 
in  the  earth  ;  men  dig  it  out  and  smelt  it,  and  refine  it 
into  silver  for  human  benefit,  and  immediately  a  lot  of 
financial  marplots  want  to  "retire  "  it  into  the  moon- 
beams, or  into  the  nebular  hypothesis,  or  "  anywhere, 
anywhere,  out  of  the  world."  As  wisely  talk  of  "  re- 
tiring "  the  mountains  whence  it  comes.  As  well  talk 
of  "retiring  "  corn,  or  hats,  or  calico.  The  coinage  of 
silver  should  be  unlimited,  for  coining  is  nothing  more 
than  the  government  certificate  stamped  upon  the  piece 
of  metal  to  the  effect  that  it  weighs  so  many  penny- 
weights or  grains;  but  it  should  be  an  hnnest  coinage, 
not  eighty  per  cent,  truth,  and  twenty  per  cent,  false- 
hood. The  present  Silver  Coinage  Act  is  a  monument 
of  imbecility  or  dishonesty.  If  silver  coinage  is  a  good 
thing,  why  limit  it  to  four  million  dollars  a  month? 
And  if  it  is  a  bad  thing  why  compel  the  government  to 
coin  at  least  itwo  millions  a  month?  This  kind  of  ob- 
struction to  nature's  laws  is  ironically  called  states- 
manship. 

Mr.  S.  is  kind  enough  to  say  that  I  am  "  too 
sensible  a  man  to  wish  to  see  silver  demonetized 
and  left  in  circulation,  as  was  done  in  1873."  He  is 
also  positive  that  I  "  did  not  work  for  wages  during 
those  six  terrible  years  from  1873  to  1878,  when  em- 


THE  PAPER  DOLLAR.  121 

ployers  bought  silver  at  from  ten  to  fifteen  cents  dis- 
count, and  .paid  their  laborers  with  it  at  full  value." 
As  to  that  I  can  only  say  that  I  did  work  for  wages 
during  those  "  terrible  six  years,"  but  I  must  confess 
that  my  employers  did  not  oppress  me  to  such  a  heart- 
less extent  as  to  pay  me  in.  silver  dollars,  because  they 
were  at  a  premium.  I  never  received  a  dollar  in  sil- 
ver during  the  whole  time,  because  greenback  dollars 
were  cheaper  than  silver  dollars,  and  my  employers 
paid  me  in  paper.  Employers  on  the  Atlantic  coast 
were  not  so  hard-hearted  as  they  were  on  the  Pacific 
coast.  They  didn't  impose  upon  their  workmen  the 
cruelty  of  silver  dollars.  If  they  had  done  so,  it  would 
have  been  better  for  me.  Mr.  S.'s  illustration  curi- 
ously proves  my  position,  that  workingmen  are  always 
paid  in  the  cheapest  money  current  at  the  time,  and 
if  he  will  keep  strict  watch  he  will  notice  that  in  pro- 
portion to  the  cheapness  of  the  dollars  paid  them  for 
their  wages,  inversely  and  adversely  is  the  dearness  of 
the  necessaries  of  life  which  they  are  compelled  to  buy. 

What  will  I  do  "if  silver  appreciates  in  value  until 
it  is  worth  more  than  gold  ?  "  Well,  I  will  cross  that 
bridge  when  I  come  to  it.  But  I  shall  never  cross  it, 
because  when  that  appreciation  comes  I  shall  be 
treading  the  golden  pavements  of  that  celestial  city 
where  silver  is  cheaper  than  sand. 

So  long  as  the  government  redeems  the  silver  dol- 
lar by  accepting  it  for  taxes  at  its  face  value,  so  long 
it  may  be  kept  at  mercantile  par  with  a  gold  dollar ; 
but  whenever  the  government  knocks  that  prop  from 
under  it  the  silver  dollar  will  fall  to  its  bullion  value ; 
business  will  drop  to  a  silver  basis  with  a  crash,  and 
the  prices  of  everything  will  rise  except  the  price  of 
labor.     A  depreciated  currency  is  a  continual  menace 


1 22  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

to  the  working  men.  When  I  hear  them  clamoring  to 
be  paid  in  cheap  money  for  dear  work,  their  cry  sounds 
like  a  vehement  appeal  for  lower  wages. 


123 


THE  SHRINKAGE  OF  VALUES. 

I  AM  just  now  engaged  in  exploring  the  dark  re- 
cesses of  monetary  science,  but  I  don't  make  much 
progress.  It  is  a  mammoth  cave,  full  of  labyrinths 
and  passages.  I  fear  that  my  guides  are  ignorant  also. 
They  pretend  to  know  all  its  pathways,  but  the  lights 
they  carry  only  flicker  in  the  gloomy  vastness;  guides 
and  followers  stumble  along  together.  To  rich  men, 
the  study  of  finance  and  its  laws,  may  be  of  little  con- 
sequence, but  to  me,  whose  wages  never  exceeds  $400 
a  year,  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  that  the  money 
of  the  country  should  be  of  good  material,  and  strong 
in  market  value.  The  rich  man  can  protect  hin)self 
against  its  fluctuations  and  its  changes,  its  expansions 
and  contractions,  but  I  am  helpless.  The  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  never  consults  me  as  to  whether  he 
shall  buy  bonds  or  sell  them.  The  Chairman  of  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee  never  waits  upon  me  at 
my  office  in  the  Sand  Bank,  to  enquire  whether  I  de- 
sire the  coinage  of  silver  dollars  to  go  on  or  stop;  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  do  not  care  whether  I 
want  the  legal  tender  act  sustained  or  declared  un- 
constitutional. Banking  syndicates.  Boards  of  Trade, 
Wall  Streets,  Incorporated  Sweat  Extractors  of  every 
kind,  never  inquire  whether  my  dollar  and-a-half  a  day 
will  buy  me  enough  to  eat  or  not.  For  these  reasons 
I  desire  to  see  the  monetary  policy  of  the  country  on 


124  WHEELBARROW. 

a  solid  and  scientific  foundation.  To  me  it  is  not  a 
matter  of  party  expediency;   it  is  a  question  of  bread. 

I  don't  know  how  to  build  a  house,  but  I  can  tell 
a  good  job  of  work  when  I  see  it.  If  I  see  a  crack  in 
the  wall,  I  suspect  a  bad  foundation,  and  I  know  that 
a  botch  has  had  something  to  do  with  it.  When  I 
find  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  paying  off  the  3  per 
cent,  bonds,  and  further  discover  that  the  United  States 
of  America  has  bound  itself  by  solemn  treaty  with  the 
United  States  of  Wall  Street  not  to  pay  its  4  per  cents, 
until  the  year  1907,  I  know  that  the  job  was  a  botch, 
and  that  the  Congress  who  did  the  work  was  com- 
posed of  a  lot  of  "  plugs."  Either  that,  or  they  were 
knaves  making  bad  laws  for  their  own  profit. 

Much  of  the  pleasure  of  mjr  life  has  consisted  in 
wishing  my  life  away.  My  joy  of  an  afternoon  has  been 
to  see  my  shadow  lengthen  in  the  sun.  As  it  grew 
longer  my  time  of  rest  grew  nearer.  I  have  been  hon- 
ester  than  other  men,  because  I  was  compelled  to  be. 
The  luxury  of  cheating  is  not  mine,  for  somebody  is 
watching  me  forever.  I  have  stolen  a  little  rest  oc- 
casionally by  the  fraudulent  device  of  lighting  my  pipe 
with  contrary  matches,  which  would  never  burn  until 
the  impatient  boss  yelled  at  me,  "Tom,  it  takes  you  a 
long  time  to  light  that  pipe."  One  day  when  this  oc- 
curred I  seized  my  'barrow,  and  walking  down  the 
plank,  I  thought  like  this,  "  He  will  not  allow  me  to 
wheel  up  a  light  load;  he  will  not  permit  me  to  clip  a 
moment  of  time,  is  he  so  particular  to  pay  good  money 
for  wages?"  It  flashed  upon  me  all  at  once  that  he 
always  paid  me  in  the  cheapest  money  that  was  cur- 
rent at  the  time,  and  it  occurred  to  me  also  that  I  had 
been  howling  for  payment  in  cheaper  money  still. 
The  experience  came  full  upon  me  the  other  day  when, 


THE  SHRINKAGE  OF  VALUES.  125 

picking  up  a  Chicago  paper,  I  read  this  alarming  head- 
ing to  an  editorial  article,  "  Drifting  toward  dear 
money."  It  was  evidently  written  by  one  of  the  stum- 
bling guides  of  the  mammoth  cave. 

What  is  dear  money?  Something  dreadful  certainly, 
for  "drifting"  suggests  a  ship,  helpless,  and  rudder- 
less moving  to  its  doom.  My  fright  ended  when  on 
reading  the  article  I  discovered  that  "  dear  money " 
meant  something  that  would  buy  more  goods  than 
money  of  the  cheaper  sort;  and  when  on  reading  fur- 
ther I  saw  that  "dear  money"  included  the  calamity 
of  cheap  rent  and  clothes  and  fuel  and  bread,  I  shouted, 
"  Let  her  drift."  The  artificial  values  that  have  been 
placed  by  bad  laws  upon  the  blessings  of  life,  must 
come  to  an  honest  level  some  time  or  other,  and  the 
sooner  the  better  for  me. 

The  prime  cause  of  this  impending  calamity, 
according  to  this  bewildered  guide,  is  the  "  virtual 
contraction  of  the  total  volume  of  exchangeable  credit 
caused  by  the  steady  withdrawal  and  cancellation  of 
about  $2,000,000,000  of  United  States  National  Bonds, 
which,  in  our  exchanges  with  Europe,  had  performed 
the  functions  of  an  international  currency  jointly  with 
gold."  Occult  phrases  have  always  been  the  stock  in 
trade  of  conjurers,  and  this  ponderous  jargon  about 
"  exchangeable  credit,"  complicated  and  confused  with 
thousands  of  millions  of  dollars,  is  the  device  of  a  lost 
guide  to  conceal  his  ignorance  of  the  road.  He  did 
not  see  that  the  bonds  had  been  "cancelled"  by  pay- 
ment, and  that  their  vacant  places  had  been  filled  by 
actual  gold  money,  created  by  the  labor  of  the  people, 
and  drawn  from  them  by  the  surgical  process  known 
as  taxation.  "  Exchangeable  credit"  is  only  the  reverse 
side  of    a  coin  having  "exchangeable  debt"  on  its 


126  WHEELBARROW. 

obverse  side.  A  bond  is  only  a  promise  to  pay  a  debt, 
and  the  credit  in  it  and  the  debt  in  it  must  travel  the 
world  together. 

A  great  many  fictitious  attributes  of  goodness  have 
been  given  of  late  to  these  bonds.  The  beneficent 
national  banks  have  been  built  upon  them ;  they 
furnish  a  convenient  savings-box  for  widows  and 
orphans  to  keep  their  money  in ;  they  make  the 
"  coupon  clippers  "  loyal  to  the  government,  and  many 
other  miracles  they  do  ;  now  we  are  told  that  they 
make  a  fine  article  of  "  exchangeable  credit,"  and  ''  per- 
form the  functions  of  an  international  currency."  If 
those  bonds  have  all  these  virtues  they  are  blessed 
things,  and  the  war  that  brought  them  is  entitled  to  all 
praise.  I  shall  never  believe  that,  for  I  was  there  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end.  It  was  a  bloody  sacrifice  ; 
and  the  only  consolation  it  ever  brings  to  me  is  that  it 
bought  the  freedom  of  the  slave.  The  price  was  the 
highest  ever  paid  for  freedom  in  this  world,  but  then, 
freedom  is  cheap  at  any  price  ;  many  of  tlie  war  curses 
are  embalmed  in  those  bonds  to  plague  our  children 
and  our  grand-children  for  a  long  time  to  come.  The 
interest  on  them  has  been  squeezed  out  of  the  laboring 
man,  and  converted  into  usury  to  oppress  him.  For  all 
that  I  would  not  flinch  a  hair's  breadth  from  either  the 
letter  or  the  spirit  of  the  contract,  but  would  redeem 
it  to  the  last  penny.  I  would  stand  up  to  a  hard  bar- 
gain as  faithfully  as  to  an  easy  one. 

It  is  complained  that  this  appreciation  of  money 
has  diminished  the  value  of  real  estate.  The  effect  of 
this  disaster  upon  me  is  that  I  must  pay  less  rent.  It 
is  also  complained  that  it  has  lowered  the  value  of  all 
merchandise.  The  only  way  in  which  this  "shrinkage 
of , values"  is  made  manifest  to  me  is  in  lower  prices 


THE  SHRINKAGE  OE  VALUES.         127 

for  everything  I  buy.  Why  then  should  I  be  troubled? 
"Because,"  retorts  the  capitalist,  "it  means  a  shrink- 
age of  wages  too."  I  am  not  afraid  of  that.  It  is  a 
lying  old  ghost  that  will  never  scare  me  again.  The 
resources  of  the  country  still  exist ;  the  necessities  of 
mankind  are  just  the  same,  and  the  labor  of  men  upon 
those  resources  is  as  valuable  as  it  ever  was.  There 
is  no  "  shrinkage  of  values,"  Bad  laws  made  by  bad 
men  in  the  interest  of  speculation,  usury,  and  monop- 
oly, have  made  an  artificial  increase  of  prices,  and 
when  those  prices  begin  to  fall  in  obedience  to  the 
claims  of  honest  industry,  extortion  sets  up  a  howl  that 
"values  are  shrinking."  The  "value"  of  a  house 
cannot  shrink,  except  from  physical  causes,  any  more 
than  the  walls  can  shrink.  The  rent  may  shrink  when 
the  artificial  causes  that  have  swollen  it  cease  to  oper- 
ate, but  the  honest  and  legitimate  value  of  the  house 
remains  the  same.  I  think  the  time  has  come  when 
workingmen  may  profitably  unlearn  much  of  their  old 
economy,  and  reverse  their  opinions  as  to  the  blessings 
of  cheap  money.  Dear  money  is  the  rightful  reward 
of  honest  labor,  and  that  money  we  should  insist 
upon. 


128  '  WHEELBARROW. 


MONETARY  PROBLEMS. 


A  SERIES  OF  QUESTIONS  ADDRESSED  TO  ''WHEELBARROW.' 


Mr.  Wheelbarrow  : 

1.  Is  a  sound  financial  system  the  greatest  of  superstructures 
upon  which  any  good  government  rests  ? 

2.  Is  there  a  shorter,  as  well  as  better,  method  of  accounts 
than  with  money  as  a  circulating  medium  ? 

3.  Is  money,  as  a  circulating  medium,  other  than  a  represen- 
tative of  value  ? 

4.  If  there  be  those  who  can  expand,  or  contract,  the  volume 
or  amount  of  money,  and  they  should  so  contract  said  volume  or 
amount,  would,  or  would  it  not,  hamper  all  persons  engaged  in  ad- 
justing their  accounts  with  others  by  the  use  of  said  circulating 
medium  ? 

5.  If  those  having  said  circulating  medium  should  say  to  those 
needing  it  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  their  account  with  their  fel- 
low, come,  you  must,  by  our  law,  have  this  circulating  medium,  in 
order  to  adjust  your  account  with  your  fellow,  and  while  I  am 
aware  you  cannot  ajEford  to  pay  so  much  for  the  use  of  it,  yet,  if  you 
will  pay  our  price,  we  will  help  you  out  this  once,  and  that  price 
should  be  three  times  what  the  party  could  afford  to  pay,  what 
effect,  if  any,  and  more  especially  if  the  controller  of  the  volume 
continues  so  to  act,  will  such  and  kindred  acts  have  in  driving  the 
buyer  of  it  to  poverty  ? 

6.  What  would  you  say,  if  there  should  be  such  persons  with 
such  a  power,  as  to  its  being  a  safe  one  for  them  to  exert  or  use  ? 

7.  If  money  be  a  representative  of  value,  or  short  method  of 
accounts,  what,  if  any  good  reason,  can  you  give  for  such  costly 
representatives  as  silver  and  gold  ? 


MONETAE  Y  PROBLEMS.  1 29 

8.  If  the  increase  of  wealth  in  a  nation  per  year  be  repre- 
sented by  the  gain  yer  cent,  upon  its  principal,  is,  or  is  it  not,  true 
that  but  the  three  classes,  agriculture,  manufacture  and  mining, 
create  that  nation's  wealth  ? 

9.  If  the  remaining  class,  commerce  or  the  wealth-distributers, 
should  take  a  greater  rate  than  the  other  three  get  for  their  dis- 
tributing process,  will  the  one  not  become  wealthy  and  the  other 
three  go  to  poverty  ?  c.  b, 

WHEELBARROW    IN    REPLY. 

What  have  I  done  that  those  questions  should  be 
thrown  at  me  ?  I  am  innocent  both  of  monetary  sci- 
ence and  political  finance.  The  banker's  grammar  is 
very  hard  Greek  to  me.  The  prickly  phrases  that 
bristle  all  over  the  tree  of  gold  and  silver  knowledge 
sting  me  like  the  blackberry-thorns  of  years  and  years 
ago.  I  have  never  been  initiated  into  the  esoteric 
mysteries  of  money.  The  occult  jargon  of  "circulat- 
ing medium,"  ''measure  of  value,"  ''double  stand- 
ard," "ratio  of  exchange,"  "elastic  limit,"  "mini- 
mum reserve,"  "multiple  tender,"  and  all  the  rest  of 
it,  is  a  perpetual  headache  to  me.  I  cannot  tell  the 
difference  between  an  obolus  and  a  kobang.  I  know 
no  more  about  "Gresham's  law"  than  Gresham  did. 
But  the  moral  "standard"  of  money  may  be  as  plain 
to  me  as  to  the  banker  or  the  statesman,  perhaps 
plainer.  By  that  standard  all  "circulating  mediums" 
must  be  tried. 

It  would  be  easy  for  me  to  say,  "give  it  up,"  and 
thus  escape  those  conundrums,  but  that  is  an  ignoble 
retreat,  and  especially  where  the  questions  include  a 
compliment,  implying  a  belief  in  the  inquirer  that  I 
am  competent  to  answer  them.  This  compliment  is 
gratifying  to  me,  and  it  would  be  ungracious  not  to 
say  so.     When  Mr.  Toots  was  asked,  "What  are  you 


1 30  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

going  to  do  with  your  raw  materials  when  they  come 
into  your  ports  in  return  for  your  drain  of  gold,"  he 
boldly  answered,  ''Cook  'em."  So  I  will  at  least  at- 
tempt an  answer  though  I  may  fire  as  wide  of  the 
mark  as  Mr.  Toots  himself. 

I  am  always  a  little  suspicious  of  hypothetical 
questions,  and  questions  which  conceal  within  them  an 
expression  of  opinion,  or  the  statement  of  a  fact,  be- 
cause a  man  unskilled  in  the  artfulness  of  logic,  ma}' 
in  his  answer  unintentionally  confess  the  fact,  or  sub- 
scribe to  the  opinion.  It  may  be  that  I  am  walking 
into  an  ingenious  verbal  trap,  but  whether  or  not,  I 
will  at  least  be  as  brave  as  Toots. 

To  the  first  question  I  answer,  No  !  I  am  sure  good 
governments  have  superstructures  greater  and  stronger 
than  financial  systems.  It  appears  to  me  that  financial 
systems  are  merely  expedients  of  government.  They 
are  only  agencies  created  by  government,  for  purposes 
of  national  housekeeping. 

The  second  question  is  not  so  clear  as  it  might  be, 
and  perhaps  in  trying  to  answer  it  I  may  be  springing 
a  (iead-fall  for  myself,  but  I  do  not  know  of  any  shorter 
or  better  way  of  keeping  accounts  than  with  money  as 
a  circulating  medium. 

To  the  third  question  I  answer.  Yes  !  It  will  circu- 
late as  a  "medium"  all  round  the  world  by  force  of  its 
own  actual  positive  worth,  when  it  cannot  travel  the 
length  of  a  street  as  a  ''representative"  of  value. 

I  tread  with  caution  all  around  the  fourth  question. 
I  think  it  conceals  a  trap  big  enough  for  a  grizzly  bear, 
let  alone  Bre'r  Rabbit.  It  begins  with  "volume  or 
amount  of  money,"  and  ends  with  "said  circulating 
medium."  Do  "money"  and  "circulating  medium" 
in  this  question  mean  the  same  thing?  However,  giv- 


MONE TARY  PR OBLEMS.  1 3 1 

ing  the  language  a  liberal  construction,  and  supposing 
it  means  the  metal  coins,  and  the  paper  ''circulating 
medium  "  known  as  currency,  I  answer  in  the  affirmative. 
It  would  work  very  great  injury  to  the  community  if 
any  persons  had  the  power  to  expand  or  contract  the 
volume  of  money,  at  their  own  will ;  and  among  those 
persons  I  include  the  person  called  ''government,"  the 
most  dangerous  of  them  all.  At  the  same  time  I  do 
not  see  how  it  is  possible  to  expand  money  except  by 
digging  it  out  of  the  ground  and  coining  it.  This  kind 
of  expansion  is  always  a  public  benefit,  while  the  ex- 
pansion of  paper  credits,  which  pass  under  the  name 
of  money,  is  very  likely  to  be  an  injury,  especially  to 
the  poor,  and  all  who  live  by  wages. 

The  fifth  question  I  suppose  refers  to  the  rate  of 
interest  for  money,  and  suggests,  again,  the  hard  bar- 
gain between  Shylock  and  Antonio.  I  wish  I  knew 
some  way  by  which  those  "having  said  circulating 
medium  "  might  be  induced  to  share  it  with  those 
who  have  none,  or,  at  least,  to  lend  them  some  of  it 
without  exacting  usury,  but  I  fear  I  shall  never  dis- 
cover the  way. 

The  sixth  question  assumes  that  there  are  persons 
who  have  the  privilege  of  expanding  and  contracting 
the  circulating  medium  at  will,  so  that  by  making 
money  scarce  and  dear,  they  may  exact  extortionate 
usury  and  oppress  the  poor.  In  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, I  promptly  say  that,  if  there  are  persons  pos- 
sessed of  such  a  dangerous  power,  it  ought  to  be  taken 
from  them.  It  is  not  a  safe  one  for  them  to  "  exert  or 
use  "  ;  at  least,  it  is  not  a  safe  one  for  those  who  happen 
to  be  scarce  of  "circulating  medium." 

The  seventh  question  assumes  that  money  is  only 
a  representative  of  value,  or  short  method  of  accounts. 


1 3  2  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

I  think  that  metallic  money  is  all  that  and  something 
more.  It  has  value  of  itself  outside  and  beyond  its 
money  uses,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  it  has  always 
been  the  money  paramount.  It  is  '^  a  thing  of  beauty 
and  a  joy  fotever."  Silver  and  gold  are  not  ''  costly 
representatives.''^  They  are  costly  actualities,  and  in 
this  very  costliness  lies  their  supremacy  as  money. 

Is  it  fair  to  demand  of  me  good  reasons  for  using 
silver  and  gold  as  money?  *'If  reasons  were  plenty 
as  blackberries,  I  would  not  give  you  a  reason  on  com- 
pulsion." To  demand  good  reasons  is  a  species  of 
compulsion.  I  can  only  render  such  reasons  as  I  have. 
They  may  be  good,  or  they  may  be  bad.  The  jury, 
the  readers  of  The  Open  Court  must  decide.  1  might 
answer  from  the  books,  as  we  answer  our  adversary's 
move  when  we  play  a  game  of  chess  by  letter.  I  find 
by  the  books  that  the  reasons  for  using  gold  and  sil- 
ver as  money  are  their  superior  homogeneity,  utility, 
portability,  cognizability,  indestructibility,  divisibility, 
stability,  and  ductility.  These  ought  to  be  convinc- 
ing, but  I  have  others.  For  thousands  of  years  all 
other  kinds  of  money  have  rendered  homage  and  con- 
fessed allegiance  to  gold  and  silver  for  the  privilege  of 
circulating  as  money  at  all.  For  ages,  all  other  kinds 
of  money  have  come  to  gold  and  silver  to  be  measured, 
and  to  receive  their  tickets  of  ''  ratio."  Men  instinc- 
tively trust  in  gold  as  the  foundation  and  basis  of  all 
money,  and  as  the  safest  of  all.  Their  faith  in  other 
money  rests  on  gold  as  its  ultimate  redeemer,  and  un- 
less that  promise  of  redemption  appear  somewhere 
about  it,  all  token,  credit,  promissory,  representative, 
and  substitute  money  stands  condemned  by  common 
consent.  You  may  demonetize  gold  by  statute,  and 
it  will  stalk  through  the  marts  and  markets,  lord  para- 


MONETARY   PROBLEMS.  133 

mount  of  money,  in  defiance  of  the  law.  It  is  natural 
money  by  the  constitution  of  commerce,  by  the  com- 
mon law  of  the  world. 

The  eighth  question  demands  my  surrender  to  the 
combined  powers  known  as  Agriculture,  Manufactures, 
and  Mining.  I  am  not  ready  to  give  myself  up.  1 
admit  that  so  far  as  human  labor  makes  the  wealth  of 
a  nation  those  three  powers  give  more  than  others  to 
the  aggregate  fund,  but  they  do  not  contribute  all. 
Hunting,  fishing,  and  some  other  human  activities  con- 
tribute something,  and  there  are  agricultural  products, 
manufactured  articles,  and  minerals  whose  value  con- 
sists more  in  the  labor  of  those  who  distribute  them 
than  of  those  who  raise  them,  fabricate  them,  or  dig 
them  out  of  the  ground.  For  instance.  Nature  has 
established  coal  cellars  in  different  parts  of  the  country 
and  filled  them  full  of  coal.  Underground  Pennsyl- 
vania is  one  of  those  coal  cellars.  Now,  the  value  of 
that  coal  up  stairs  at  the  mouth  of  the  pit  is  not  only 
what  the  laboring  miner  has  given  it,  but  also  what  the 
capitalist  who  sunk  the  shaft,  and  the  engineers  who 
contrived  the  means  to  reach  the  coal,  have  given  it. 
The  value  of  it  in  Chicago  is  what  all  those  together 
and  the  distributers  have  given  it  by  their  joint  exer- 
tions, and  the  distributer  may  have  furnished  the  larger 
share. 

To  the  ninth  question,  I  answer  that  the  hypothesis 
appears  to  me  to  suppose  an  impossibility.  The  last 
value  of  an  article  is  the  price  paid  for  it  by  the  con- 
sumer, and  that  price  includes  the  reward  of  every- 
body who  has  had  anything  to  do  with  it.  Commerce 
can  get  its  own  share  and  no  more.  It  cannot  get  the 
share  of  the  farmer,  the  manufacturer,  or  the  miner. 
If  it   could,  they  would   consume  their  own  products, 


134  WHEELBARRO  W. 

and  commerce  would  cease  to  be.  Each  of  the  ''three 
classes"  gets  the  price  of  product  at  the  farm,  the 
shop,  or  the  mine.  The  "wealth  distributer"  then 
takes  charge  of  it,  and  carries  it  to  the  dearest  market 
he  can  find.  He  charges  ''whatever  the  traffic  will 
bear,"  and  the  consumer  pays  it  all.  The  bridge  be- 
tween the  original  producer  and  the  final  consumer 
may  be  long  or  short,  and  the  person  who  carries  the 
"projuice"  over  it  may  be  an  extortioner,  but  after 
all,  he  cannot  get  any  more  than  the  traffic  will  bear. 
That  the  profits  may  be  more  fairly  shared  by  the 
other  "three  classes"  is  the  object  of  state  railroad- 
regulations,  inter-state  commerce  laws,  and  similar 
contrivances,  some  of  them  wise  and  some  of  them 
not.  Whatever  rate  the  wealth  distributer  may  charge 
for  his  work,  it  does  not  follow  that  therefore  the 
farmer,  the  miner,  and  the  manufacturer  must  "go  to 
poverty." 

It  may  be  that  there  is  no  common  agreement  be- 
tween my  questioner  and  me  as  to  what  really  consti- 
tutes money.  He  may  recognize  many  potencies  as 
money  that  I  reject,  and  after  all,  we  ma}''  be  strangers 
to  each  other's  meaning,  like  two  men  trying  to  con- 
verse together  in  different  languages.  I  remember 
long  ago,  when  I  was  meandering  through  France, 
how  vexed  I  used  to  be  at  the  stupidity  of  the  French 
people,  who  could  not  understand  their  own  language 
when  spoken  to  them  by  me.  Sd,  I  fear  my  questioner 
may  be  vexed  at  my  dullness  because  I  do  not  under- 
stand exactly  v/hat  he  means  by  money. 

"There  are  many  "circulating  mediums"  of  bad 
character  traveling  about  as  money,  and  they  are  doing 
a  very  extensive  business  on  false  pretenses.  Certain 
substitute   money,  having  served  for  a  time  in  that 


MONE  TAR  V  PR OBLEMS.  1 35 

capacity,  declares  itself  real  money,  is  recognized  as 
such,  and  does  a  great  deal  of  mischief  before  it  can 
be  arrested  and  suppressed.  For  this,  government  is 
responsible.  It  has  usurped  prerogatives  and  powers 
that  belong  to  omnipotence  alone,  and  with  cheap 
money  it  has  cheated  the  poor  man  out  of  his  wages. 
It  was  a  daring  and  arrogant  usurpation  when  govern- 
ments declared  money  to  be  a  legal-tender  in  payment 
of  debts,  for  by  doing  so,  they  made  a  political  stand- 
ard of  honesty,  elastic,  uncertain,  and  shifting  from 
time  to  time.  This  despotic  legislation  has  thrown 
the  whole  system  of  human  dealing  into  a  chaos  of 
moral  confusion.  Governments  declare  tobacco,  coon- 
skins,  rum,  promissory  notes,  and  various  other  things 
to  be  legal-tender  in  payment  of  debts,  and  the  con- 
sequence is,  that  the  sense  of  moral  obligation  is  weak- 
ened among  the  people. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  it  is  not  within  the  legal 
province  of  the  supreme  power  in  the  state  to  close  its 
courts  to  creditors,  and  declare  that  certain  coon-skins, 
or  other  legal-tenders,  having  been  offered  them,  their 
debtors  are  free,  and  their  debts  paid  j  but,  in  the 
dominion  of  morals,  the  act  is  absolutely  void.  There 
justice  reigns,  and  a  debt  is  not  paid  until  the  moral 
obligation  it  contains  is  cancelled.  Great  as  this  gov- 
ernment is,  it  is  not  able  to  pay  any  man's  debt  by 
statute.  It  may  declare  the  debt  expunged,  satisfied, 
wiped  out,  even  ^^paid,"  but  only  the  debtor  can  pay 
it.  The  moral  confusion  in  these  cases  arises  from  the 
use  of  the  wrong  word,  '^payment."  A  debtor,  find- 
ing that  his  debts  are  ''paid  "  by  legal  force,  is  apt  to 
think  that  the  moral  obligation,  as  well  as  the  legal 
obligation,  has  been  discharged  by  the  laws  of  his 
country,  when,  in  fact,  the  moral  obligation  can  be 


136  WHEELBARROW. 

discharged  by  himself  alone.  ''I  owe  you  nothing," 
said  a  dishonest  debtor  to  his  creditor,  ''that  note 
was  outlawed  last  week."  In  like  manner,  the  bank- 
rupt, having  passed  through  the  court,  thinks  that  he 
owes  nothing  and  that  all  his  debts  are  paid. 

It  was  a  fantastic  dream  of  the  alchemists  that  by 
chemical  expedients  they  might  change  the  baser  mate- 
rials into  gold,  but  it  is  a  more  irrational  fanaticism 
that  believes  in  the  power  of  governments' to  create 
money  that  will  pay  debts.  All  the  resources  and  skill 
of  the  alchemists  failed,  and  there  is  no  political  al- 
chemy that  can  perform  this  miracle.  Right  here,  per- 
haps, my  questioner  and  I  find  ourselves  trying  to  con- 
verse together  in  different  languages.  He  may  mean 
one  thing  by  ''money"  and  I  another.  Until  we  can 
reach  a  common  understanding  as  to  what  really  con- 
stitutes money,  we  shall  have  no  foundation  whereon 
to  build  "a  sound  financial  system." 


137 


THE  POETS  OF  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR. 


GERALD    iM  A  S  S  E  Y. 


For  a'  that,  and  a'  that, 

It's  coming  yet  for  a'  that, 
When  man  to  man  the  world  o'er 

Shall  brothers  be  for  a'  that.— Robert  Burns. 

In  these  little  tributes  I  speak  only  of  those  who 
are  poets  to  me.  What  rank  they  occupy  in  literature 
is  a  question  too  profound  for  my  limited  learning, 
and  so  I  do  not  trouble  myself  with  it.  I  know  noth- 
ing about  the  laws  of  taste  nor  the  rules  of  criticism. 
I  suppose  that  Gerald  Massey  does  not  rank  among 
the  poets  at  all ;  at  least  I  never  see"  or  hear  anything 
of  him  in  such  reading  and  preaching  as  comes  to  me. 
And  yet  by  the  sympathy  of  a  common  fate  and  a  com- 
mon suffering,  his  verses  weave  themselves  around 
me  like  a  spell,  and  that  spell  is  poetry  to  me.  I  am 
not  at  all  ashamed  to  say  that  Massey  is  to  me  one 
of  the  great  poets,  although  the  confession  may  bring 
upon  me  the  ridicule  of  cultivated  men.  Homer, 
Shakespeare,  Milton,  are  not  poets  to  me,  except  in 
those  odd  places,  here  and  there,  where  my  mind  is 
strong  enough  to  understand  them,  and  where  their 
spirit  is  able  to  purify  and  lift  up  mine.. 

If  she  be  not  fair  to  me, 
What  care  I  how  fair  she  be. 

Gerald  Massey  is  a  genius,  twisted,  gnarled,  and 
stunted  by  hunger  and  cold,  and  that  premature  toil 


1 38  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

which  never  should  be  laid  upon  a  child.  Although 
his  crippled  wings  have  kept  him  near  the  ground,  his 
notes  are  true,  and  drawn  from  nature's  own  dear 
heart.  What  songs  he  might  have  sung  had  he  been 
permitted  to  soar  like  England's  bonney  skylark  up  to 
the  gates  of  heaven  !  He  sings  in  a  minor  key,  for  his 
hymns  are  plaintive  and  sad.  They  have  struggled 
into  life  out  of  poverty.  That  they  are  sometimes 
angry  and  bitter  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  As  he  said 
himself  at  a  later  day:  ** Those  verses  do  not  ade- 
quately express  what  I  think  and  feel  now ;  yet  they 
express  what  I  thought  and  felt  then,  and  what  thou- 
sands besides  me  have  thought  and  felt,  and  what 
thousands  still  think  and  feel."  He  was  only  a  boy 
when  he  wrote  *'The  Three  Voices,"  and  without  any 
education  how  was  he  to  put  a  nice  polish  on  his  work, 
especially  in  the  everlasting  moaning  and  droning  of 
that  infernal  mill.  The  people  who  despise  this  pas- 
sionate rally  may  think  it  very  inartistic  and  crude, 
but  to  the  men  who,  like  Massey,  are  grinding  their 
lives  away  in  shops  and  mills  and  factories,  it  has  all 
the  inspiration  of  poetry,  and  it  is  poetry.  Here  is 
the  second  of  ''The  Three  Voices." 


Another  voice  comes  from  the  millions  that  bend, 

Tearfully,  tearfully,  tearfully  ! 
From  hearts  which  the  scourges  of  slavery  rend. 

Fearfully,  fearfully,  fearfully  ! 
From  many  a  worn  noble  spirit  that  breaks, 

In  the  world's  solemn  shadows  adown  in  Life's  valleys, 
From  mine,  forge  and  loom,  trumpet-tongued  it  awakes. 
On  the  soul  wherein  Liberty  rallies  : 
Work,  work,  work  ! 
Yoke  fellows  listen, 
Till  earnest  eyes  glisten  : 
'Tis  the  voice  of  the  Present.     It  bids  us,  my  brothers, 
Be  Freemen  ;  and  then  for  the  freedom  of  others. 

Work,  work,  work  ! 
For  the  many,  a  holocaust  long  to  the  few, 


THE  POETS  OF  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR.     139 

O  work  while  ye  may ! 

O  work  while  'tis  day  I  * 

And  cling  to  each  other  united  and  true, 
Work,  work,  work  ! 

There  is  a  personal  bond  of  sympathy  between 
Massey  and  me  arising  partly  from  acquaintanceship, 
and  partly  from  other  accidents.  Once  when  I  was 
about  nineteen  years  old  I  went  from  London  down 
into  Lancashire.  I  had  a  job  of  work  at  a  place  called 
Prescott,  a  short  distance  out  from  Liverpool.  I  had 
to  make  the  trip  on  foot,  for  I  couldn't  afford  the  lux- 
ury of  riding.  I  walked  forty  miles  the  first  day,  and 
rested  that  night  at  a  little  town  called  Tring,  in  Hert- 
fordshire. I  was  on  the  road  before  daylight  next 
morning,  for  I  wanted  to  make  another  forty  miles  be- 
fore night.  It  was  a  chill,  drizzly  morning  in  Novem- 
ber, and  just  as  I  started  I  met  a  lot  of  shivering, 
hungry  children  going  to  their  work  at  the  silk  factory. 
Among  these  poor  blights  was  Gerald  Massey.  At 
least  I  have  always  pictured  him  amongst  them.  He 
was  born  in  Tring,  and  worked  as  a  child  in  that  silk 
factory,  and  I  shall  always  think  that  he  was  among 
those  children  that  I  met  that  morning.  That  was 
Massey's  childhood,  if  it  be  not  sacrilege  to  call  such 
misery  by  that  beautiful  name.  '^  I  had  no  childhood," 
he  writes.  *'  Having  had  to  earn  my  own  dear  bread, 
by  the  eternal  cheapening  of  flesh  and  blood,  from 
eight  years  old,  I  never  knew  what  childhood  meant. 
Ever  since  I  can  remember  I  have  had  the  aching  fear 
of  want  throbbing  in  heart  and  brow."  In  hopeless 
mill-slavery  he  sung  : 

Still  all  the  day  the  iron  wheels  go  onward, 

Grinding  life  down  from  its  mark  ; 
And  the  children's  souls,  which  God  is  calling  sunward, 

Spin  on  blindly  in  the  dark. 


1 40  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

When  Massey  was  writing  his  beautiful  poem 
''Lady  Laura,"  the  memory  of  his  infant  sufferings  in 
the  silk-mill  wrung  from  his  soul  a  cry  of  anguish  so 
like  a  curse  that  we  tremble  at  the  sound  of  it  with  a 
sort  of  guilty  fear  lest  it  may  fall  upon  us.  We  won- 
der whether  we  have  done  anything  to  deserve  it,  and 
whether  we  are  partners  in  that  or  any  kindred  wrong  : 

Pleasantly  rings  the  chime  that  calls  to  the  Bridal  Hall  or  Kirk ; 

But  the  devil  might  gloatingly  pull  for  the  peel  that  wakes  the  child  to  work. 

"Come,  little  children,  the  mill-bell  rings,"  and  drowsily  they  run, 

Little  old  men  and  women  and  human  worms  who  have  spun 

The  life  of  infancy  into  silk,  and  fed  child,  mother  and  wife, 

The  factory's  smoke  of  torment  with  the  fuel  of  human  life. 

O  weird  white  faces,  and  weary  bones,  and  whether  they  hurry  or  crawl, 

You  know  them  by  the  factory-stamp,  they  wear  it  one  and  all. 

A  few  bursts  of  lyric  melody  that  trill  among  the 
domestic  affections  like  the  canary  bird's  music  at 
home;  some  martial  and  patriotic  poems  ringing  like 
the  bugle-call  at  Balaklava ;  some  amorous  wooing  of 
freedom  all  aflame  with  desire  for  the  exaltation  of 
labor ;  some  bursts  of  joy  and  sorrow  mingling  in  the 
spring-time  of  his  life,  as  April  days  are  sometimes 
made  of  little  bits  of  sunshine  and  much  rain ;  and 
then  his  poetic  strength  gave  way.  His  intense  genius 
was  exhausted  in  the  first  ecstasy  of  freedom,  like 
some  ambitious  tree  that  spends  its  life-time  vigor  in 
one  exuberant  fruitage,  and  is  barren  evermore.  For 
twenty  years  Massey  has  done  nothing  great  in  poetry. 
He  has  written  books,  indeed,  but  his  harp  is  dumb, 
and  it  is  too  late  now  to  awaken  its  chords  again. 

The  revolutionary  storm  that  swept  over  Europe  in 
1848  found  in  Massey  its  poet  laureate.  He  was  then 
a  youth  of  nineteen,  small,  weak,  but  brave  and  ready 
to  fight,  somewhat  revengeful  under  a  sense  of  social 
injustice,  exultant  in  the  noise  of  falling  thrones,  and 
hopeful   that,    at  last,    the  people  were   coming  into 


THE  POETS  OF  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR.     141 

power.  When  the  reaction  came  and  all  was  lost,  he 
still  believed  that  the  blood  of  the  vanquished  had  not 
been  shed  in  vain,  and  that  out  of  it  would  grow  a 
harvest  of  better  laws,  and  victory  at  last.  He  be- 
lieved that  the  men  of  the  barricades  would  be  avenged, 
and  that  in  a  more  triumphant  day  their  memory  would 
be  glorified  in  a  Marseillaise  hymn  rolling  far  beyond 
the  boundaries  of  France,  clear  over  Germany,  Eng- 
land, and  all  the  lands  of  Europe.  Here  is  something 
that  reads  like  one  of  the  hymns  of  Korner : 

They  rose  in  Freedom's  rare  sunrise, 

Like  giants  roused  from  wine ; 
And  in  their  hearts  and  in  their  eyes 

The  God  leapt  up  divine  I 
Their  souls  flashed  out  as  naked  swords, 

Unsheathed  for  fiery  fate  I 
Strength  went  like  battle  with  their  words — 

To  men  of  Forty-eight  ! 
Hurrah  1 

For  the  men  of  Forty-eight. 

Some  in  a  bloody  burial  sleep, 

Like  Greeks  to  glory  gone, 
But  in  their  steps  avengers  leap, 

With  their  proof  armor  on  ; 
And  hearts  beat  high  with  dauntless  trust 

To  triumph  soon  or  late, 
Though  they  be  mouldering  down  in  dust — 

Brave  men  of  Forty-eight  ! 
Hurrah  ! 

For  the  men  of  Forty-eight. 

Is  it  kind  in  our  mother  nature  to  make  such  high- 
strung  souls  as  that  of  Gerald  Massey  ?  To  be  sure  they 
enjoy  the  brightness  of  life  more  keenly  than  the  rest 
of  us,  but  they  suffer  more  intensely  in  the  cold  and 
darkness  of  it.  In  his  pain  Massey  sought  sympathy 
in  the  spirit  world,  and  found  it ;  at  least  he  told  me  so. 
I  believe  that  Spiritualism  is  unreal,  a  trick  which  some 
of  our  faculties  play  upon  the  others,  an  unfair  advan- 
tage which  the  imagination  takes  of  our  desire  for  com- 


1 42  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

munion  with  something  better  than  ourselves.  But  how 
can  I  speak  for  him  ?  He  has  told  me  of  happy  meet- 
ings with  his  dead  wife,  not  in  dreams,  but  in  wakeful 
day,  and  when  she  has  counseled  with  him  face  to  face. 
He  has  told  me  of  the  happiness  that  comes  to  him  in 
his  sad  moments  when  he  hears  the  bright  voice  of  his 
dead  child  calling  him  **Papa,"  and  feels  the  palpable 
weight  of  her  as  she  climbs  upon  his  knee.  I  can  read- 
ily believe  him,  for  the  soul  that  could  suffer  so  keenly 
at  her  loss  might  have  power  to  bring  her  back.  In  all 
the  poetry  springing  out  of  domestic  bereavement  there 
is  nothing  that  I  know  of  so  like  a  flood  of  tears  as 
''  The  Ballad  of  Babe  Christabel."  Here  is  a  bit  of  it 
picked  at  random,  but  it  is  all  of  equal  beauty  : 

With  her  white  hands  claspt  she  sleepeth  ;  heart  is  husht  and  lips  are  cold; 

Death  shrouds  up  her  heaven  of  beauty,  and  a  weary  way  I  go, 
Like  the  sheep  without  a  shepherd  on  the  wintry  Norland  wold, 

With  the  face  of  day  shut  out  by  blinding  snow. 

And  in  the  kindred  poem,  ''The  Mother's  Idol 
Broken,"  the  same  grief-strains  break  out  of  his  heart 
and  flow  in  a  deep  current  that  purifies  human  life,  if  it 
does  not  spiritualize  it.  There  are  whole  pages  of  this 
poem,  and  all  the  verses  of  it  are  diamonds  of  equal 
brilliancy.  He  doesn't  see  Death  taking  his  child  away, 
but  only  some  spirits  calling  for  it. 

Our  rose  was  but  in  blossom  ; 

Our  life  was  but  in  Spring, 
When  down  the  solemn  midnight 

We  heard  the  spirits  sing  : 
"  Another  bud  of  infancy, 

With  holy  dews  impearled  ;" 
And  in  their  hands  they  bore  our  wee 

White  rose  of  all  the  world 

This  is  a  curl  of  our  poor  "  Splendid's  "  hair  I 
A  sunny  burst  of  rare  and  ripe  young  gold— 

A  ring  of  sinless  gold  that  weds  two  worlds  I 
Our  one  thing  left  with  her  dear  life  in  it 


THE  POETS  OF  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR.     143 

The  domestic  poems  of  Massey  brighten  every 
home,  and  glorify  wives  and  mothers.  Some  of  them 
in  home-grandeur  almost  rival  those  of  Robert  Burns. 
Here  is  a  bit  of  one  that  might  aspire  to  the  society  of 
<'John  Anderson,  my  Jo,"  which  is  claiming  a  good 
deal : 

Her  dainty  hand  nestled  in  mine,  rich  and  white, 

And  timid  as  trembling  dove  ; 
And  it  twinkled  about  me,  a  jewel  of  light. 

As  she  garnisht  our  feast  of  love  ; 
'  Twas  the  queenliest  hand  in  all  lady-land, 

And  she  was  a  poor  man's  wife  ! 
O  !  little  ye'd  think  how  that  wee,  white  hand 

Could  dare  in  the  battle  of  life. 

There  is  no  humor  in  Massey  ;  at  least,  none  that  I 
have  ever  found.  His  poems  are  all  passion,  burning, 
vehement  passion,  crowded  with  gorgeous  imagery,  so 
crowded,  indeed,  as  often  to  obstruct  their  sweet 
melodious  flow.  He  is  a  fervent  Englishman.  His 
political  anger  was  never  turned  against  the  mother- 
land. It  smote  only  the  oppressors  who  had  ravished 
the  scepter  out  of  her  hand  and  made  it  an  instrument 
of  wrong.  In  the  gloomy  days  of  the  Crimean  war, 
his  heart  beat  high  for  England,  and  his  verses  thrilled 
with  the  old  heroic  fire.  How  this  bit  makes  the 
pulses  throb  : 

I  had  a  gallant  brother,  loved  at  home,  and  dear  to  me — 
I  have  a  mourning  mother,  winsome  wife,  and  children  three- 
He  lies  with  Balaklava's  dead.     But  let  the  old  land  call, 
We  would  give  our  living  remnant,  we  would  follow  one  and  all  ! 

I  had  a  brother  in  the  "■  Light  Brigade  "  in  the  Cri- 
mean war^  and  maybe  that's  another  tie  between  Ger- 
ald  Massey  and   me.     I  join  in  his  song  to  England  : 

The  old  nursing  mother's  not  hoary  yet. 

There  is  sap  in  her  Saxon  tree  ; 
Lo  I  she  lifteth  a  bosom  of  glory  yet, 

Through  her  mists,  to  the  Sun  and  the  Sea. 


1 44  WHEE'LBARR  O  W. 

Fair  as  the  Queen  of  Love,  fresh  from  the  foam, 
Or  a  star  in  a  dark  cloud  set ; 

Ye  may  blazon  her  shame— ye  may  leap  at  her  name- 
But  there's  life  in  the  Old  Land  yet. 

In  the  democracy  of  Gerald  Massey  the  ''higher 
classes "  are  the  people  who  work  for  a  living,  the 
''lower  classes"  are  the  idlers  who  live  on  the  sweat 
of  others.  The  old  chivalry  is  abolished,  and  the 
chivalry  of  labor  takes  its  place.  Knighthood  can  only 
be.  won  in  the  field  of  usefulness  and  toil.  Here  is  a 
song  worthy  to  be  the  anthem  of  the  Knights  of  Labor 
all  over  the  world : 

Uprouse  ye  now,  brave  brother  band, 
With  honest  heart  and  working  hand. 
We  are  but  few,  toil-tried  and  true, 
Yet  hearts  beat  high  to  dare  and  do. 
And  who  would  not  a  champion  be 
In  labor's  lordlier  chivalry  ? 

O  !  there  are  hearts  that  ache  to  see 
The  day-dawn  of  our  victory. 
Eyes  full  of  heart-break  with  us  plead. 
And  watchers  weep  and  martyrs  bleed. 
O  !  who  would  not  a  champion  be 
In  labor's  lordlier  chivalry  ? 

Work,  brothers  mine  ;  work  hand  and  brain ; 
We'll  win  the  Golden  Age  again. 
And  Love's  Millennial  morn  shall  rise 
In  happy  hearts  and  blessed  eyes. 
Hurrah  !  hurrah  !  true  knights  are  we 
In  labor's  lordlier  chivalry. 


45 


THE  POETS  OF  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR. 


ROBERT  BURNS. 


One  of  the  chief  tests  of  a  great  man  is  this,  What 
was  the  ethical  result  of  him?  What  influence  did  he 
have  on  social  character  and  political  morality  ?  Let 
us  apply  this  test  to  Robert  Burns. 

A  few  days  ago  the  birthday  of  Burns  was  honored 
with  memorial  festivities  by  all  the  people  of  British 
lineage  throughout  the  world.  This  poet  is  greeted 
on  his  birthday  with  a  loving  homage  such  as  never 
has  been  offered  to  any  other  poet  in  this  world.  The 
explanation  of  this  pre-eminent  popularity  is  found  in 
the  universality  of  his  genius ;  it  embraces  all  man- 
kind. A  marvellous  thing,  when  we  remember  that 
no  other  poet  is  so  intensely  national  as  Burns.  He 
was  a  Scotchman  in  every  pulsation  of  his  heart.  He 
was  himself  the  intellectual  Scotland  of  the  i8th  cen- 
tury;  equally  so  as  the  Scotland  of  the  i6th  century 
was  the  incarnate  conscience  of  John  Knox.  Burns 
is  the  type  and  model  of  the  Scottish  race  in  its  high- 
est development.  No  other  man  has  ever  stamped 
his  own  individuality  upon  the  clay  of  which  his  coun- 
trymen are  made,  as  Burns  has  impressed  his  person- 
ality upon  all  Scotchmen.  Their  love  and  veneration 
for  him  spring  from  gratitude  and  pride.  He  has  ele- 
vated the  standard  of  them  all.  He  has  added  a  cubit 
to  the   spiritual    stature  of   every    man  in   Scotland, 


146  WHEELBARROW. 

from  MacCallum  Moore  in  his  Highland  castle  to  the 
humblest  peasant  who  tends  his  sheep  upon  the 
mountains. 

The  chief  elements  of  Burns's  popularity  are  his 
lyric  genius,  his  ardent  patriotism,  his  manly  inde- 
pendence, and  his  unselfish  love  toward  all  the  chil- 
dren of  men.  "In  ease,  fire,  and  passion,"  says  Allan 
Cunningham,  ''he  was  second  to  none  but  Shakes- 
peare." He  might  have  added  that  as  a  lyric  poet,  as 
a  national  song  writer,  he  was  not  excelled  nor  equalled 
by  Shakespeare  nor  by  any  other  poet  that  was  ever 
born.  Burns  had  the  divine  gift  of  music  in  such  ex- 
cellence that  he  could  put  in  tune  all  the  different 
instruments  in  the  great  orchestra  of  man,  and  force 
them  to  vibrate  in  harmony.  There  are  single  songs 
of  his  that  make  the  hearts  of  all  men  throb  in  unison 
together.  These  songs  have  passed  out  of  the  exclu- 
sive ownership  of  Scotland ;  they  have  become  the 
joint  property  of  all  nations  in  that  sublime  commun- 
ism represented 

In  the  parliament  of  man, 
The  federation  of  the  world. 

It  was  said  by  Emerson  that  Burns  made  a  mere 
provincial  dialect  classic.  He  did  more  than  that ;  he 
glorified  by  his  pathos  and  humor,  not  only  the  dialect 
of  Scotland,  but  the  very  weeds  in  her  valleys,  the 
heather  on  her  banks  and  braes,  the  hamely  fare  and 
hodden  gray  of  her  peasantry,  yea,  the  very  rags  of 
her  poverty.  He  made  all  of  them  classic  as  the  ma- 
jestic imagery  of  Milton.  He  poured  his  soul  in  love 
and  benediction  upon  his  country  in  such  exuberant 
flood  that  before  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century 
it  had  overflowed  the  British  Islands,  and  now  covers 
all  the  world. 


THE  POETS  OE  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR.     147 

It  was  patriotism  in  exquisite  refinement  that 
caused  this  man,  when  reaping  in  the  harvest  field,  to 
turn  the  sickle  aside  and  spare  a  thistle  because  it  was 
the  ^*  symbol  dear"  under  which  his  fathers  for  a 
thousand  years  had  fought  for  Scottish  liberty  and  in- 
dependence. Only  a  soul  in  love  with  nature,  manifest 
in  the  modesty  of  beauty,  could  apologize  to  a  moun- 
tain-daisy which  the  plough  struggling  for  bread  had 
overthrown. 

There  is  deeper  feeling  still,  and  a  closer  kinsman 
sympathy  in  the  apology  which  Burns  offers  to  a 
mouse  whose  home  with  all  its  furniture  and  stores  was 
wrecked  by  that  same  plough  in  that  same  struggle  for 
bread.  The  mouse  runs  away  in  spite  of  the  poet's 
assurance  that  there  is  no  occasion  for  fear.  He  will 
not  even  wait  to  hear  the  explanation  that  the  ruinous 
earthquake  was  an  accident,  and  that  the  author  of  it 
was  totally  unaware  that  the  mouse's  home  was  in  the 
ploughshare's  way.  There  is  nothing  so  kind  and 
dignified  in  all  the  etiquette  of  courts  as  the  tone  and 
language  of  this  apology  : 

"  I'm  very  sorry  man's  dominion 
Has  broken  nature's  social  union, 
And  justifies  that  ill  opinion, 
That  makes  thee  startle 
At  me,  thy  poor  earth-born  companion, 
An'  fellow  mortal." 

Only  a  poetic  genius  gifted  with  a  knowledge  of 
the  divine  unity  pervading  all  things,  could  have 
made  the  lofty  comparison  expressed  in  the  last  two 
lines  oi  that  stanza.  Only  an  eye,  illuminated  by  a 
light  brighter  than  the  light  of  the  sun  could  have  seen 
the  spirit  thread  that  binds  e\en  men  and  mice 
together  in  a  communion  of  suffering,  toil,  pleasure, 
duty,    disappointment,    and    an    impartial    mortality. 


1 48  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

Here,  in  the  words  ''earth-born  companion,  an'  fel- 
low mortal  "  we  find  a  key  to  the  social  ethics  of 
Robert  Burns.  We  can  follow  this  ethical  thread 
from  the  mouse  to  the  sheep  in  '  'Poor  Maillie's  Elegy ; " 
from  the  sheep  to  the  horse  in  the  "  New  Year's  Ad- 
dress to  the  Auld  Mare  Maggie  ;"  and  from  the  horse 
to  the  human  brotherhood  in  "  Man  was  made  to 
mourn." 

The  ethics  of  all  this  tenderness  to  animals  lies 
chiefly  in  its  reflex  power  upon  the  social  state  ;  the 
rebounding  of  this  charity  from  horses  and  mice  and 
sheep,  upon  men  and  women  and  children.  This  poet, 
whose  barns  were  none  of  the  largest,  and  seldom  over- 
loaded, recognized  the  claims  of  every  "earth-born 
companion,  and  fellow  mortal "  to  share  with  him  in 
the  hour  of  its  need.  That  the  mouse  was  outlawed 
under  the  "habitual  criminals  act,"  as  an  incorrigible 
thief,  rather  increased  than  diminished  the  charity  of 
Burns  towards  him.      In  fact,  he  says, 

"  I  doubt  na,  whiles  but  ye  may  thieve, 
What  then,  poor  beastie ;  thou  maun  live, 
A  daimen  icker  in  a  thrave 

's  a  sma'  request; 
I'll  get  a  blessing  wi'  the  lave 
An'  never  miss't." 

Have  we  any  ethical  culture  of  a  finer  quality  than 
that?  Have  the  churches  any  more  sublime  religion 
than  this  philosophical  socialism  of  Robert  Burns,  that 
he  who  gives  a  share  of  his  abundance  as  justice  and 
benevolence  demand  will  get  a  blessing  with  the  rest 
of  it  ?  Have  they  or  we  any  more  exalted  theology 
than  this  of  Robert  Burns  : 


'The  heart  benevolent  and  kind, 
The  most  resembles  God." 


THE  POETS  OE  LIBER 7  Y  AND  LABOR.     149 

*'The  merciful  man  is  merciful  to  his  beast,"  says 
the  scripture,  meaning  also  that  kindness  to  animals  is 
a  sign  of  a  morally  well-built  man,  and,  let  me  add,  of 
a  brave  man.  I  noticed  when  in  the  cavalry  that  a 
soldier  who  was  cruel  to  his  horse  was  generally  a 
coward  in  battle.  In  mathematics,  the  greater  includes 
the  less  ;  in  ethics  the  less  includes  the  greater  ;  and  in 
religion  too  :  "As  ye  have  done  it  unto  the  /east  of 
these  my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto  me."  So  the 
demonstration  is  complete  ;  the  man  who  is  tender, 
merciful,  and  just  to  his  fellow  mortals  of  the  inferior 
creation,  will  be  considerate,  just,  and  kind  to  all  his 
fellow  men. 

The  sympathy  of  Burns  was  not  limited  to  the  uni- 
verse of  mice,  or  sheep,  or  men.  It  went  down  into 
the  infernal  regions,  and  whispered  hope  into  the  ear 
of  the  arch  fiend,  Satan  himself;  but  this  hope  was 
conditioned  on  reform. 

"  Then  fare  ye  weel,  auld  Nickie-ben 

Oh  wad  ye  tak  a  thought  an'  men'  I 
Ye  aiblins  might,  I  dinna  ken, 

Still  hae  a  stake, 
I'm  wae  to  think  upon  yon  den, 

E'en  for  your  sake." 

The  sentiment  of  his  "■  Address  to  the  Deil  "  may 
not  be  theologically  orthodox,  although,  I  think,  it 
will  be  orthodox  in  time.  Our  doctors  of  divinity  and 
our  doctors  of  law  have  been  much  confused  in  their 
divinity  and  their  law,  owing  to  the  erroneous  account 
of  the  great  battle  fought  in  heaven,  in  the  primitive 
eternity  before  time  was.  It  is  a  mistake  that  Satan 
lost  that  battle;  and  for  that  mistake  John  Milton  is 
very  much  responsible.  Satan  won  it;  and  that  ex- 
plains the  dominion  of  selfishness,  inequality,  injus- 
tice, avarice,  lust,  slavery  and  gibbets  upon  this  earth. 


ISO 


WHEELBARROW. 


But  although  Satan  won  that  battle,  the  war  is  not  at  • 
an  end.  Year  by  year,  and  day  by  day,  the  reinforce- 
ments of  truth,  knowledge,  wisdom,  philosophy,  for- 
giveness, charity,  and  all  the  powers  of  light  are  coming 
up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  against  the  mighty,  and  the 
kingdom  of  Satan  will  cease  to  be.  I  do  not  say  that 
it  will  be  violently  overthrown,  for,  aided  by  the  poetic 
and  prophetic  vision  of  Robert  Burns,  I  see  the  coming 
day  when  Satan  himself  will  be  converted  and  re- 
formed; when  even  his  principality  shall  be  numbered 
among  the  powers  that  make  for  righteousness.  "Na- 
ture's Social  Union  "  broken  by  ''man's  dominion," 
will,  by 'man's  intellectual  and  moral  enlightenment, 
be  restored. 

The  necromancy  of  Burns,  the  magnetic  power  by 
which  he  subdues  the  hearts  of  all  men,  lies  chiefly  in 
his  eloquent  songs.  In  these,  the  poet  touches  with 
majestic  ease  and  magic  melody  every  string  in  the 
diapason  of  human  passion  and  emotion,  from  the 
martial  thunder  of  '*  Scots  wha  hae  wi'  Wallace  bled  " 
to  the  sweetlove  whisper  in  ''John  Anderson,  my  Jo," 
where  virtuous  old  age  is  glorified,  and  where  the  do- 
mestic affection  of  the  Scottish  people  is  made  famous 
for  evermore. 

In  his  ideal  of  a  social  democracy  we  find  the  poli- 
tical ethics  of  Robert  Burns.  The  key  to  it  may  be 
found  in  that  manliest  of  democratic  songs,  "A  man's 
a  man  for  a'  that."  Here  "sense  and  worth"  are  ex- 
alted as  the  only  patents  of  nobility  that  can  give  legit- 
imate rank  or  titles  to  any  man.  In  the  political  mor- 
ality of  this  song,  the  man  who  is  worth  the  most  is  the 
man  who  has  the  most  worth.  It  is  the  proud  asser- 
tion of  a  laborer  that  he  is  a  man  for  all  that,  and  it  is 
a  dignified  protest  that  shall  stand  forever  against  the 


THE  POETS  OF  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR.     151 

degradation  of  ''honest poverty. "  The  political  econ- 
omy of  it  is  the  right  of  every  man  that  every  other 
man  shall  work.  He  must  do  something  by  hand  or 
brain  useful  to  the  community. 

I  have  heard  this  song  criticized  according  to  the 
canons  of  literary  taste  and  style.  I  have  lately  read 
a  criticism  of  it  by  Matthew  Arnold,  an  eminent  man 
indeed,  but  one  who  never  came  under  the  spell  of  its 
poetry,  because  he  never  belonged  to  the  classes  rep- 
resented in  the  song.  Let  him  criticize  it  who  has 
toiled  in  the  field,  the  factory,  or  the  shop  ;  him  who 
has  worked  out  in  the  weather,  building  houses  and 
railroads;  him  who  has  earned  his  honest  bread  up  on 
the  giddy  mast,  or  down  in  the  dark  mine.  As  well 
criticize  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  for  its  rhet- 
oric. In  fact,  ''A  man's  a  man  for  a'  that"  is  the 
American  Declaration  of  Independence  condensed  into 
the  poetry  of  Scotland.  The'  inspiration  and  the  doc- 
trine of  both  productions  is  the  equality  of  man.  I 
have  seen  the  Declaration  of  Independence  very  se- 
verely criticized  not  only  for  its  diction  but  for  its  pol- 
itics, too.  I  have  seen  fifty  thousand  critics  in  a  line 
criticizing  it  with  shot  and  shell  and  musketry.  What 
of  it?  When  their  criticism  ended,  the  flag  born  of 
the  Declaration  streamed  above  their  speechless  can- 
non, and  from  every  star  in  its  brilliant  constellation 
there  shone  upon  the  world  the  gospel  of  the  political 
new  testament:  ''All  men  are  created  equal;"  "A 
man's  a  man  for  a'  that." 

The  personal  independence  of  Burns  gives  mascu- 
line strength  and  moral  vigor  to  his  poetry.  It  is  this 
personal  trait  which  his  countrymen  try  to  imitate. 
To  his  immortal  honor  be  it  said  he  founded  his  inde- 
pendence on  his  ability  to  earn  his  bread  by  the  labor 


152  WHEELBARROW. 

of  his  hands.  In  the  dedication  of  his  poems  to  the 
noblemen  and  gentlemen  of  the  Caledonian  Hunt,  he 
is  careful  to  say  that  this  is  done  only  as  a  tribute  of 
regard,  and  not  as  a  bid  for  patronage  or  favors.  In 
that  dedication  he  uses  these  words,  ''I  was  bred  to 
the  plough,  and  am  independent."  Here  he  reverses 
the  former  doctrine  that  independence  consisted  in  the 
ability  to  live  on  the  labor  of  other  men.  He  pro- 
claimed the  higher  law  of  independence,  the  ability  to 
live  on  his  own  labor.  ^'  I  was  bred  to  the  plough,  and 
am  independent." 

I  complain  of  the  amiable  injustice  which  is  con- 
tinually done  to  the  independent  spirit  of  Robert 
Burns.  Loving  admirers  mourn  the  hardness  of  his 
lot,  and  reproach  his  country  for  neglecting  him. 
''Scotland,"  they  say,  "lavish  of  posthumous  honors 
to  her  great  son,  permitted  him  to  live  in  poverty,  and 
die  in  debt.  He  asked  for  bread  and  he  received  a 
stone."  Nothing  can  be  more  untrue  than  that;  and 
they  honor  not  Burns  who  say  it.  He  never  asked  for 
bread;  he  earned  it.  Nor  did  he  ever  in  his  lifetime 
receive  a  stone  at  the  hands  of  Scotland.  Scotland 
would  not  have  dared  to  offer  him  help  either  in  alms 
or  pensions.  He  was  too  proud  to  accept  the  patron- 
age of  anybody.  The  brave  heart  which  in  life  would 
accept  no  man's  pity,  is  humiliated  with  gratuitous 
pity  after  death.  It  is  because  Burns  bore  his  cross 
alone,  and  asked  no  other  man  to  carry  it  for  him,  that 
we  honor  him  to-day.  There  is  no  moral  majesty  in 
this  world  which  has  not  at  some  time  or  other  worn 
its  crown  of  thorn.  Would  Burns  be  a  ro5^al  king  to- 
day had  he  not  had  the  double  coronation  of  poverty 
and  pain?  The  man  who  makes  the  journey  of  life  in 
a  palace-car,  who  worships  from  a  gilt  edged  prayer- 


THE  POETS  OE  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR.     153 

book,  and  drinks  his  eucharistic  wine  from  a  golden 
chalice,  presents  a  dim  and  dingy  appearance  at  St. 
Peter's  gate,  because  the  soul  of  him  has  never  been 
polished  by  the  friction  of  adversity  and  struggle.  He 
gets  inside,  of  course,  for  I  believe  that  every  one  gets 
inside,  but  having  no  moral  mark  upon  him,  no  sign 
of  the  cross,  he  mixes  with  the  plebian  multitude  and 
is  not  recognized  in  celestial  ''society." 

In  like  manner  the  Holy  Willies  croak  harsh  judg- 
ment against  Burns  for  his  indulgence  in  unworthy 
appetites.  I  do  not  say  that  Burns  was  guiltless  alto- 
gether, but  I  do  say  that  his  vices  have  been  exagger- 
ated, as  was  necessary,  in  order  to  show  them  in  glar- 
ing contrast  with  the  moral  grandeur  of  his  virtues. 
For  much  of  this  exaggeration  the  poet  is  h  mself  re- 
sponsible. In  his  moments  of  remorse,  he  accuses 
himself  in  terms  of  self-reproach  so  eloquently  keen, 
that  many  even  of  his  admirers  have  taken  him  at  his 
word.  In  the  course  of  my  life,  it  has  been  my  hap- 
piness to  number  among  my  intimate  friends  many 
members  of  the  Episcopalian  Church,  and  I  have  often 
been  amused  to  hear  them  denounce  themselves  as 
''miserable  sinners,"  when  I  knew  that  their  lives  were 
pure,  beneficent,  and  virtuous,  that  they  were  not  sin- 
ners at  all,  and  that  there  was  a  house  and  lot  re- 
served for  every  one  of  them  in  the  New  Jerusalem. 
I  will  not  take  them  at  their  word,  neither  will  I  ac- 
cept Burns's  plea  of  guilty,  extorted  from  him  under 
the  duress  of  sorrow  and  remorse. 

One  day  last  summer,  I  stood  with  a  friend  gazing 
on  the  statue  of  Schiller  in  Lincoln  park.  My  friend 
was  one  of  the  Pharisees  of  art,  and  he  pointed  out 
several  defects  in  the  statue.  I  endured  his  criticisms 
very  well  so  long  as  we  looked  the  great  poet  squarely 


154  WHEELBARROW. 

in  the  face,  but  when  the  critic  took  me  behind  the 
statue,  and  showed  me  that  the  wrinkle  in  the  back 
of  the  coat  was  not  according  to  the  canons  of  high  art, 
I  lost  all  patience  and  told  him  that  his  criticism  had 
dropped  into  mere  backbiting,  and  that  I  must  beg 
pardon  of  Schiller  for  listening  to  censorious  remarks 
about  him,  uttered  behind  his  back.  So  the  Pharisees 
of  poetry  stand  behind  the  image  of  Burns  and  show 
us  wrinkles  in  his  character.  There  are  people  who 
will  not  allow  you  to  praise  the  splendor  of  the  full 
moon.  If  you  do  so,  they  will  say  that  it  is  well  for  the 
moon  that  only  one  side  of  her  is  visible  to  man,  and 
that  if  we  could  see  the  other  side  we  might  find  that 
her  ladyship  was  no  better  than  she  ought  to  be. 

Although  much  of  Burns  lived  in  the  earthy  fog 
where  inferior  mortals  dwell,  his  forehead  was  always 
above  the  clouds.  There,  radiant  in  the  sun,  it  re- 
flected upon  earth  the  melodious  poetry  of  heaven. 
Near  my  home  is  a  church,  with  a  tall  spire  on  it 
crowned  with  a  gilded  cross.  That  cross  is  the  first 
thing  visible  to  me  in  the  early  morning  when  every- 
thing beneath  it  is  wrapped  in  fog.  I  can  see  it  gleam- 
ing in  the  sunshine  before  I  can  see  anything  else  in 
the  city,  several  seconds  indeed  before  I  can  see  the 
sun.  There  are  the  church,  and  the  priest,  and  the 
congregation,  enveloped  in  the  fogs  of  a  Gothic  super- 
stition, but  above  them  all  I  see  blazing  in  the  sun  the 
symbol  of  self-sacrifice,  and  in  the  brightness  of  it  I  can 
read  a  promise  that  the  mist  and  the  fog  shall  be  dis- 
solved into  the  ether  of  eternal  truth.  So  above  the 
clouds  I  see  the  forehead  of  Robert  Burns  lighted  by 
the  forgiving  beams  of  heaven,  and  there  I  see  the 
golden  promise  that  the  mists  and  fogs  which  have  so 
long  obscured  his  greatness  will  all  be  cleared  away. 


^55 


THE  POETS  OF  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR. 


THOMAS  HOOD. 


How  like  a  bonny  bird  of  God  he  came, 

And  poured  his  heart  in  music  for  the  poor  ; 

And  trampled  manhood  heard,  and  claimed  his  crown, 

And  trampled  womanhood  sprang  up  ennobled  ! 

The  world  may  never  know  the  wealth  it  lost, 

When  Hood  went  darkling  to  his  tearful  tomb. 

—Gerald  Massey 

There  are  some  hearts  born  into  this  world  that 
never  die.  Like  the  great  ocean,  they  encircle  all 
humanity,  and  throb  forever.  Upon  them  trampled 
manhood  and  trampled  womanhood  fling  themselves  for 
comfort  when  tired  and  sorrow-laden.  There  the  laborer 
finds  rest,  and  there  he  picks  up  new  courage  to  help 
him  in  the  battle  for  bread.  Among  those  immortals 
Thomas  Hood  stands  ''crowned  and  glorified."  Upon 
his  breast  labor  lays  her  troubles  and  her  wrongs.  Out 
of  his  bosom  comes  an  inspiration  that  shall  some  day 
give  the  toilers  victory. 

Those  thoughts  came  to  me  this  morning,  as  I  was 
reading  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  ''Trades 
Assembly,"  which  met  last  Sunday  at  No.  57  North 
Clark  street.  I  cannot  exactly  account  for  it,  but  some- 
how or  other,  on  reading  Mr.  McLogan's  description 
of  theworkingwomen,  I  turned  instinctively  to  Thomas 
Hood,  for  spiritual  strength.  I  turned  for  consolation 
to  the  inspired  writings  of  the  prophet  who  sang  "The 
Song  of  the  Shirt ; "  and  again  I  heard  him  say — 


156  WHEELBARROW. 

Oh,  men,  with  sisters  dear  ! 

Oh,  men.  with  Mothers  and  Wives  \ 
It  is  not  linen  you're  wearing  out, 

But  human  creatures'    lives. 

I  have  still  a  hope  that  Mr.  McLogan  was  mis- 
informed, and  that  it  is  not  true  that  ''whole  families 
have  to  work  eleven  hours  a  day  to  earn  twelve  dollars 
a  week."  I  trust  that  Mr.  Foley  was  in  error  when  he 
said  that  ''the  average  wages  of  women  in  Chicago 
shops  and  factories  was  only  60  cents  a  day."  If  those 
statements  are  true,  they  reveal  a  profligate  condition 
of  society,  and  the  end  is  easy  to  foresee.  That  society 
cannot  stand.  It  is  built  on  the  shifty  sands  of  in- 
equality and  injustice,  where  no  government  has  ever 
yet  been  safe  in  this  world.  This  condition  will  breed 
a  social  gloom,  out  of  which  we  shall  see  growing  a 
funnel-shaped  cloud  reaching  from  earth  to  heaven. 
We  shall  hear  the  roar  of  a  whirlwind  that  will  shake 
our  political  inheritance  to  its  foundations,  and  per- 
haps destroy  it. 

I  don't  know  much  about  poetry  ;  of  the  great  poets 
nothing  at  all.  I  cannot  understand  them  for  lack  of 
education.  I  can  only  interpret  those  poets  that  un- 
derstand me,  and  there  is  not  a  line  in  Thomas  Hood 
that  I  cannot  comprehend.  Many  of  his  verses  seem 
woven  of  threads  drawn  from  my  own  life  and  expe- 
rience, and  I  almost  fancy  that  I  wrote  them.  How 
glorious  it  is  to  know  something  !  What  a  splendid 
thing  is  learning  !  In  my  sorest  poverty  I  never  envy 
a  man  riches,  but  I  have  always  been  jealous  of  his 
better  education.  When  I  was  a  youth  I  had  a  job  of 
work  at  Cambridge,  in  England.  Here  were  colleges 
all  around  me.  In  this  one  Milton  studied  ;  in  that 
one  Byron;  in  that  other  one  Newton  trained  liis 
mighty  mind.    Those  colleges  were  all  castles  fortified 


THE  POETS  OF  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR.     157 

against  me.  I  used  to  look  up  at  the  walls  as  I  passed 
by  them,  and  long  to  get  inside,  that  1  might  feed  on 
the  learning  that  had  developed  those  mighty  men.  I 
used  to  look  at  the  young  fellows  there  of  my  own  age, 
students  of  the  university,  with  an  envy  that  I  have 
never  felt  in  all  my  life  toward  any  others  of  my  brother 
men.  As  they  passed  me  clad  in  their  uniforms  of  cap 
and  gown,  I  hated  them  with  jealousy.  In  a  fool's 
vanity  I  sometimes  think,  even  now,  that  perhaps  I 
might  have  been  somebody  if  I  could  have  had  a  chance 
at  schooling  in  my  youth.  But  at  thirteen  I  entered 
the  ranks  of  slavery,  and  there  was  no  more  school  for 
me.  Perhaps  it  is  because  I  cannot  understand  the 
great  poets,  that  I  cherish  with  stronger  affection  those 
who  have  come  down  to  m}^  own  level,  and  woven  my 
own  sorrows  into  song.  It  may  be  that  this  is  why  I 
cherish  Thomas  Hood. 

Statements  like  those  of  the  Trades  Assembly,  re- 
vealing the  slave-condition  of  the  needle  women  of 
London,  brought  from  the  soul  of  Thomas  Hood  that 
indignant  protest  known  as  "The  Song  of  the  Shirt." 
It  startled  men  out  of  their  guilty  ease.  It  rang  across 
the  land,  filling  England  with  alarm,  as  though  the 
archangel's  trumpet  was  calling  Dives  to  judgment. 
Every  man  tried  to  shift  the  sin  upon  his  neighbor  and 
in  affected  anger  inquired.  Who  has  been  starving  the 
women  of  England  ?  Out  of  the  rhyme  of  Thomas 
Hood  came  back  the  answer  to  every  monopolist, 
''Thou  art  the  man."  There  was  discomfort  in  the 
mahogany  pews,  for,  drowning  the  preacher's  voice 
and  the  roar  of  the  great  organ,  was  heard  the  shrill 
wail  of  the  hungry  seamstress  : 

It's  oh  !  to  be  a  slave, 
Along  with  the  barbarous  Turk, 


5  8  WHEELBARR O W 


Where  woman  has  never  a  soul  to  save, 
If  this  is  Christian  work. 


With  fingers  weary  and  worn, 

With  eyelids  heavy  and  red, 
A  woman  sat  in  unwomanly  rags, 

Plying  her  needle  and  thread — 
Stitch,  stitch,  stitch, 
In  poverty,  hunger  and  dirt. 

And  still  with  a  voice  of  dolorous  pitch, — 

Would  that  it's  tone  could  reach  the  rich, — 
She  sang  this  song  of  the  shirt. 

It  did  reach  the  rich,  and  they  tried  to  buy  peace 
for  their  consciences  that  winter  by  copious  giving  of 
alms,  but  above  all  that,  the  voice  of  labor  cried  like 
a  storm,  *'We  want  not  charity  but  justice." 

It  is  difficult  to  say  which  had  the  greater  influence 
upon  the  heart  of  England,  the  "Song  of  the  Shirt," 
or  "The  Bridge  of  Sighs."  One  was  really  the  comple- 
ment of  the  other.  Together  they  smote  the  adaman- 
tine social  system  like  the  rod  of  Moses  on  the  rock  of 
Horeb,  and  the  waters  of  healing  gushed  forth.  There 
was  a  stupid  alderman  of  London,  Sir  Peter  Laurie — 
Dickens  has  satirized  him  in  "The  Chimes" — whose 
mission  it  was  to  "put  down"  suicide,  and  whenever 
any  of  the  girls  who  jumped  into  the  river  from  Wa- 
terloo Bridge,  were  rescued  by  the  boats,  and  brought 
before  him,  he  punished  them  by  sending  them  to 
prison.  "I  am  determined  to  put  down  suicide,"  he 
used  to  say;  but  he  never  thought  of  putting  down  the 
social  crime  that  made  the  suicide.  Nor  did  English 
public  sentiment.  It  was  thick  and  stolid  as  the  head 
of  Sir  Peter  Laurie.  Newspapers  moralizing  could 
not  arouse  it,  neither  could  the  passionate  denuncia- 
tions of  orators  and  statesmen.  Then  came  the  poet, 
and  awakened  it  to  a  higher  sense  of  duty,  and  to  wiser 
plans  of  charity.      Hood's  poem  appeared,  and  a  new 


THE  POETS  OE  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR.     159 

light  shone  upon  the  bridge.  By  the  gleam  of  it  '^so- 
ciety" could  see  itself  pushing  the  girls  into  the  river, 
and  in  self- accusation  said  :  "Sir  Peter,  you  ought  to 
send  us  to  prison,  and  not  the  girls."  A  more  humane 
feeling  was  created,  which  shaped  itself  into  schemes 
of  social  amelioration,  and  into  better  laws.  There 
was  no  more  talk  of  "putting  down"  suicide  by  send- 
ing girls  to  prison.  And  ever  after  that,  when  some 
homeless  and  forsaken  wanderer  sought  rest  in  the 
dark  waters,  there  was  no  harsh  condemnation,  but 
men  said  with  genuine  sorrow — 

One  more  unfortunate, 

Weary  of  breath, 
Rashly  importunate. 

Gone  to  her  death. 

Take  her  up  tenderly, 

Lift  her  with  care, 
Fashioned  so  slenderly, 

Young  and  so  fair. 
***** 

Make  no  deep  scrutiny 
Into  her  mutiny, 

Rash  and  undutiful ; 
Past  all  dishonor. 
Death  has  left  on  her 

Only  the  beautiful. 

There  was  not  a  man  of  healthy  morals,  in  all  the 
town  of  London,  who  was  not  awakened  by  the  elo- 
quent reproach  of  the  poet,  a  reproach  memorable  now 
throughout  all  the  English  world,  familiar  in  Melbourne 
and  Chicago,  as  in  England — 

Alas  !    for  the  rarity 
Of  Christian  charity 

Under  the  sun  ! 
Oh  !  it  was  pitiful ! 
Near  a  whole  city  full 

Home  she  had  none. 

And  every  hbertine  was  smitten  with  disgrace  and 
terror  when  he  read — 


:  6o  WHEELBARR  O  W. 


In  she  plunged  boldly, 
No  matter  how  coldly, 

The  rough  river  ran,- 
Over  the  brink  of  it. 
Picture  it— think  of  it 

Dissolute  man  1 
Lave  in  it,  drink  of  it 

Then,  if  you  can  1 


To  hammer  philosophy  into  shapes  of  beauty  is  the 
calling  of  the  poet.  What  a  grand  workman  was 
Hood  !  What  melodies  rang  out  from  his  anvil,  and 
what  sparks  from  his  hammer  flew  !  What  chaste  and 
lovely  forms  he  made  !  Every  one  of  his  creations 
ministered  unto  virtue,  and  none  of  them  could  be  used 
to  decorate  a  wrong.  Like  Burns,  he  lifted  labor  up, 
and  left  it  a  step  higher  than  he  found  it.  His  humor 
was  an  overflowing  well,  so  copious  that  some  men  used 
to  think  there  could  not  be  any  room  in  him  for  greater 
poetry.  And  yet  his  wit  and  humor,  so  delightful,  and 
so  pure,  were  but  the  framework  to  poetic  jewels  worthy 
to  shine  in  the  coronet  of  Shakespeare. 

Certes,  the  world  did  praise  his  glorious  wit. 
The  merry  jester  with  his  cap  and  bells  I 
•    And  sooth  his  wit  was  like  Ithuriel's  spear  : 

But  'twas  mere  lightning  from  the  cloud  of  his  lire, 
Which  held  at  heart  most  rich  and  blessed  rain. 

There  was  an  abundant  English  market  for  cant 
when  Hood  was  in  his  prime  \  but  though  poor,  and 
troubled,  and  sick,  he  would  not  pander  to  Mammon, 
either  in  church  or  state,  and  so  the  rich  rewards  of 
soul-servility  passed  him  by.  But  the  poet  kept  his 
gift,  unsullied  by  hypocrisy  or  bribe.  As  he  would  not 
flatter  the  popular  beliefs,  bigotry  assailed  him.  One 
prominent  reviewer,  Rae  Wilson,  Esq.,  criticized  his 
poems  as  having  an  irreligious  tendency,  and  Hood's 
reply  left  Mr.  Wilson  looking  like  a  scarecrow.  Such 
banter  and  comedy,  and  fun,  have  rarely  been  united 


THE  POETS  OE  LIBERTY  AND  LABOR.     i6i 

to  overwhelm  an  assailant  as  they  are  in  the  *^  Ode  to 
Rae  Wilson."  Seldom  has  the  uncharitable  character 
of  self-assumed  piety  been  so  vividly  exposed  as  in  that 
ode.  I  know  nothing  superior  to  it,  except  ''  Holy 
Willie's  Prayer."     It  is  full  of  gems  like  this  : 

Spontaneously  to  God  should  tend  the  soul, 
Like  the  magnetic  needle  to  the  pole  ; 

But  what  were  that  intrinsic  virtue  worth, 
Suppose  some  fellow  with  more  zeal  than  knowledge, 
Fresh  from  St.  Andrew's  College, 

Should  nail  the  conscious  needle  to  the  North  ? 

Mr.  Wilson  was  of  St.  Andrew's,  and  Hood  con- 
tinues thus : 

I  will  not  own  a  notion  so  unholy. 

As  thinking  that  the  rich  by  easy  trips 
May  go  to  heaven,  whereas  the  poor  and  lowly, 

Must  work  their  passage,  as  they  do  in  ships. 

One  place  there  is — beneath  the  burial  sod. 
Where  all  mankind  are  equalized  by  death  ; 

Another  place  there  is — the  Fane  of  God, 
Where  all  are  equal  who  draw  living  breath. 
******** 

He  who  can  stand  within  that  holy  door. 
With  soul  unbowed  by  that  pure  spirit-level. 

And  frame  unequal  laws  for  rich  and  poor, — 
Might  sit  for  Hell,  and  represent  the  Devil. 

That  lust  of  gold  which  coins  the  poor  man's  chil- 
dren into  money,  hides  its  face  from  the  scorn  of  Thomas 
Hood.  His  poetic  wrath  scorches  avarice  like  fire. 
The  laboring  heart  is  drawn  by  the  magnetism  of  his 
preaching  up  to  a  healthier  atmosphere,  where  the 
currents  of  life  flow  purer,  and  where  humanity  sees 
more  clearly  the  work  it  has  to  do.  Not  for  ever  shall 
the  greed  of  privileged  classes  rob  the  laborer  of  the 
profits  of  his  toil.  Every  day  the  workingmen  are 
learning  something  new.  By  and  by  they  will  know 
their  duty  and  organize  their  power.  Then  the  moral 
force  of  a  great  cause,  backed  by  a  voting  strength  in- 


1 62  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

vincible,  will  put  them  in  possession  of  their  great 
estate.  Not  by  fighting,  not  by  bombs  and  bullets  ; 
these  are  barbarism.  The  labor  triumphs  that  are 
coming  will  be  moral  victories,  and  even  they  must  be 
preceded  by  our  conquest  of  ourselves.  If  we  seek 
justice,  we  must  do  it  \  if  we  demand  liberty,  we  must 
grant  it.  The  whole  domain  of  handicraft  must  be  free 
to  all  the  people.  The  right  to  learn  a  trade  must  be 
conceded  to  every  American  boy  ;  and  after  he  has 
learned  it,  the  right  to  work  at  it  must  not  be  taken 
from  him.  We  have  much  self  discipline  to  undergo 
yet,  and  the  sooner  we  go  into  moral  training  the 
better.  The  control  of  our  own  appetites  must  come 
before  our  final  victory. 


1 63 


HENRY  GEORGE  AND  LAND  TAXATION. 


What  a  glorious  idea:,  the  fatherhood  of  God,  the 
brotherhood  of  man,  and  a  millenium  on  earth  by  the 
simple  means  of  a  single  tax  on  land!  That  is  the 
promise  contained  in  Mr.  Henry  George's  doctrine,  so 
brilliantly  set  forth  in  his  Progress  and  Poverty.  I 
have  read  the  book — nay  I  have  devoured  it.  There 
was  so  much  truth  in  it,  and,  alas!  so  much  impossi- 
ble fairy-land  that  I  began  to  doubt.  It  is  a  most 
fascinating  work  on  political  economy,  and  I  am  un- 
der the  spell  of  its  eloquence  still.  The  line  of  de- 
marcation between  reality  and  dreamland  is  not  easily 
drawn  where  both   are  so  closely  blended. 

The  book  contains  a  doctrine  which  I  learned  from 
somebody,  or  some  book,  many  years  ago,  and  which 
still  clings  to  me,  although  entangled  with  many  mis- 
givings. It  is  that  of  abolishing  the  tariff  and  the 
whole  system  of  indirect  duties,  and  putting  all  taxes 
on  land.  I  am  told  that  the  idea  was  first  proposed  by 
the  French  economists  called  physiocrats,  who  con- 
ceived the  directest  way  of  taxation  the  best.  They 
compared  the  social  growth  of  a  nation  to  that  of  a 
tree  which  derives  all  its  sap  and  strength  from  the 
roots.  The  roots  are  agriculture,  the  stem  is  the  pop- 
ulation, the  branches  are  the  different  industries,  the 
leaves  are  commerce,  and  the  blossoms  are  the  sci- 
ences and  arts.     If  but  the  roots  are  sound,  let  nature 


1 64  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

take  care  of  the  rest.  The  leaves,  the  blossoms,  and 
the  fruits,  how  distant  they  all  appear  from  the  roots! 
and  yet  they  are  all  in  closest  connection;  the  leaves 
draw  all  their  juice  from  the  roots.  There  is  no  need 
of  protecting  the  leaves  for  the  sake  of  the  roots;  and 
even  if  branches  are  torn  off  by  the  storm,  the  injury 
is  not  serious,  and  the  work  of  restoration  immediately 
begins  if  the  roots  have  not  suffered. 

While  Mr.  George's  enthusiasm  animates  and  en- 
courages me,  I  think  I  can  see  a  flaw  in  his  policy. 
I  believe  in  the  justice  and  practicability  of  land  tax- 
ation. Let  land  be  taxed  according  to  its  value,  and 
remove  the  many  duties  on  other  quarters  which  are 
obstacles  to  progress  and  weigh  heaviest  on  the  poor. 
I  have  no  other  argument  for  my  view  than  that  it 
seems  to  rfie  not  unjust,  and  not  impracticable.  My 
proof  would  be  a  fair  trial.  I  trust  it  will  work  well 
and  commend  itself  especially  to  those  who  start  in 
life.  As  land  would  lose  in  value,  if  burdened  with 
taxes,  it  would  afford  to  a  poor  man  a  greater  oppor- 
tunity to  take  to  farming.  All  machinery  and  other 
products  of  industry  would  be  cheaper,  if  the  prices 
were  not,  as  is  the  case  now,  artificially  raised,  so  that 
a  full  dollar  in  the  United  States  goes  on  every  sev- 
enty or  sixty  cents,  or  even  less,  in  England  and  in  the 
world's  market.  Money  would  be  dear,  and  if  a  little 
dear  money  buys  much  goods,  a  start  in  life  will  be 
easier  in  every  field. 

So  far  as  land  taxation,  its  justice  and  practica- 
bility are  concerned,  Mr.  George  and  I  travel  to- 
gether. But  almost  from  the  beginning  in  Mr. 
George's  arguments  our  roads  part.  I  believe  that 
a  radical  defect  in  this  plan  lies  in  the  mistake  that 
a  tax  may  be  converted  by  political  magic  from  a  bur- 


HENRY  GEORGE— LAND  TAXATION.      165 

den  to  a  blessing.  Taxes  may  be  unwisely  and  un- 
fairly levied,  and  the  burden  of  them  thereby  in- 
creased; but  in  their  wisest  and  most  virtuous  form, 
they  are  a  burden  at  the  best.  Believing  this  very  im- 
portant premise  of  his  argument  to  be  an  error,  I  doubt 
the  economic  soundness  of  his  conclusions.  To  the  man 
who  buys  land,  it  will  be  a  boon  to  have  it  on  easy 
terms,  but  to  the  farmer  who  owns  his  farm,  land  tax- 
ation will  always  be  felt  as  a  burden. 

But  there  is  another  fundamental  error.  Mr.  George 
calls  his  book  "Progress  and  Poverty,"  and  denounces 
every  progress  under  present  circumstances  as  driving 
a  parting  wedge  between  the  rich  and  the  poor.  Every 
progress,  he  maintains,  benefits  the  rich  only,  it  makes 
them  richer  and  oppresses  the  poor  worse  than  they 
were  before.  This  Mr.  George  has  not  proved,  and 
there  is  little  probability  that  he  ever  will  prove  it,  for 
it  is  not  true  and  very  likely  the  contrary  may  be 
proved  most  easily.  Progress  is  always  beneficial  to 
the  poor  as  well  as  to  the  rich.  A  poor  man  would 
consider  himself  wretched  now  if  he  did  not  enjoy  cer- 
tain   comforts   which   were    luxuries   in   former  days. 

The  arguments  upon  which  Mr.  George  builds  his 
system  are  patriotic  and  humane.  He  bases  it  on  the 
idea  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  proclaims  that  the 
earth  is  God's  impartial  gift  to  all  the  children  of  men. 
"It  is  in  the  scripture.  Trim,"  said  Uncle  Toby.  So 
Mr.  George  believes  that  "The  earth  is  the  Lord's 
and  the  fulness  thereof,"  and  from  that  sublime  text 
he  preaches  a  very  old  agrarian  gospel  in  a  newer 
form  of  words.  It  is  possible  that  our  Saxon  ances- 
tors when  they  took  possession  of  Britain  cherished 
similar  ideas,  as  did  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  time 
of  Moses.     Whether   they  did  or  not,  they  certainly 


1 66  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

acted  in  that  way;  they  abolished  the  land  monopoly, 
these  of  the  Cananites  and  those  of  the  Britons,  and 
both  of  them  established  another  land  monopoly  of 
their  own.  They  took  possession  in  the  name  of  their 
gods,  and  when  the  Normans  invaded  England  they 
also  came  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  for  the  Pope  had 
blessed  their  leader's  sword. 

All  these  arguments  from  beyond  the  clouds  are 
of  a  very  doubtful  nature  and  we  should  not  employ 
them  so  long  as  we  have  other  arguments  which  are 
more  palpable  and  not  so  sentimental.  Wherever  they 
are  employed  I  am  apt  to  be  prejudiced  that  there  is 
something  wrong;  and  if  the  cause  for  which  they  are 
used  is  not  wrong,  there  must  certainly  be  a  lack  of 
proof  or  a  flaw  of  logic  in  the  man  that  argues. 

Mr.  George  makes  a  difference  between  Land, 
Capital  and  Labor.  Land  is  the  condition  of  our  ex- 
istence as  well  as  of  our  labor.  Labor  creates  all 
values,  and  capital  is  as  it  were,  stored  up  labor. 

Mr.  George  points  out  the  difference  between  land 
and  capital,  but  he  loses  sight  of  the  fact  that  land  in 
itself  and  apart  from  labor  has  no  value  whatever.  It 
acquires  value  only  by  the  application  of  labor.  It  is 
true  that  an  unimproved  lot  in  the  city  has  value,  but 
what  is  that  value  otherwise  than  the  labor  of  those 
who  live  there.  I  agree  with  Mr.  George  that  that 
value  should  be  taxed,  but  even  in  this  case  it  is  labor 
that  is  taxed,  and  not  the  land.  I  would  not  buy  a 
hundred  square  miles  of  most  fertile  land  in  Central 
Africa  for  a  dime  if  it  could  be  had  for  that  price,  be- 
cause it  is  useless;  it  is  without  value  so  long  as  there 
is  no  hope  to  make  it  valuable  through  labor.  If  only 
land  should  be  taxed  apart  from  improvement,  many 
lots  on  the  lakeside  of  Chicago  should  be  free  of  taxa- 


HENRY  GEORGE— LAND  TAXATION.      167 

tion,  for  they  consist  of  improvement  only.  The  Dutch 
people  should  be  free  from  all  taxation,  the  districts 
where  swamps  have  been  before  ought  to  be  a  forbid- 
den ground  to  tax  gatherers.  In  truth  all  lands  under 
cultivation  are  like  Holland,  they  have  been  gained  or 
improved  by  labor  and  the  sum  total  of  their  labor 
value  is  rarely  covered  by  their  market  value.  If  only 
land  should  be  taxed  apart  from  improvement,  as  Mr. 
George  proposes,  this  would  be  an  abolition  of  taxa- 
tion altogether. 

While  the  basis  of  Mr.  George's  theory  is  vague 
and  unsubstantial,  the  consequences  which  he  prophe- 
cies to  follow  are  fantastical.  It  is  the  abolition  of 
poverty  and  the  beginning  of  a  millenium  upon  earth. 

Mr.  George's  optimism  is  enviable,  it  is  like  that 
of  a  child.  Here  he  places  himself  in  one  and  the 
same  line  with  the  many  other  reformers  that  have 
found  a  panacea  for  all  evils  in  the  world.  But  the 
promises  are  so  positive,  that  Dr.  McGlynn  says,  he 
would  not  hesitate,  if  he  could,  to  introduce  at  once 
such  changes  as  would  realize  this  single  tax  theory. 
Does  the  Doctor  forget  that  all  sudden  changes  must 
bring  about  a  most  dangerous  crisis.  Even  a  sudden 
change  for  unmixed  good  may  be  fatal.  A  consump- 
tive person  has  to  be  accustomed  to  good  air  by  de- 
grees, and  a  half- starved  man  must  take  his  first 
meal  by  small  bits.  Moreover,  are  not  those  who 
have  invested  their  capital,  i.  e.,  their  stored-up  labor 
in  land,  entitled  to  be  protected  in  their  possession 
acquired  under  our  present  system.  Is  it  just  to  de- 
prive a  farmer  of  his  farm  which  he  has  bought  with 
the  toil  and  sweat  of  his  or  his  fathers'  life? 

These  difficulties  are  not  insurmountable,  although 
they  must  for  a  time  impede  the  introduction  of  land 


i68  WBRELBARRO  W. 

taxation.  Land  taxation  can  easily  be  introduced  by 
slow  degrees,  and  a  compensation  may  be  given  to 
those  who  would  suffer  unfairly  by  the  change.  But 
even  granted  that  the  advantages  of  land  taxation 
would  be  great,  I  fail  to  see  how  it  can  produce  such 
a  glorious  state  of  things  as  Mr.  George  hopes  for. 

Is  he  so  utterly  blind  to  the  fact  that  poverty  has 
many  sources,  (of  which  I  confess  our  wrong  system 
of  taxation  is  a  very  important  one,)  and  that  after  the 
removal  of  this,  there  are  a  hundred  others  to  fight? 
If  there  is  one  chief  source  of  poverty  we  should 
not  seek  it  in  circumstances  but  in  man.  The 
savage  is  dependent  upon  circumstances,  but  civilized 
man  should  be  able  to  govern  circumstances,  and  use 
all  his  mental  and  moral  powers  to  make  the  best  of 
his  situation  by  wise  foresight,  economy,  thrift,  and  in- 
dustry, instead  of  letting  things  go  until  circumstances 
have  improved.  I  know  of  one  panacea  only;  it  is 
man's  obedience  to  the  moral  laws.  But  the  applica- 
tion of  this  rule,  simple  though  it  sounds  in  its  gen- 
eralized form,  is  so  complex  that  it  hardly  deserves 
the  name  of  a  panacea.  Land  taxation  even  if  it  had  in 
its  consequence  all  the  impossible  blessings  it  is  sup- 
posed to  have  according  to  Mr.  George,  would  be  of 
no  avail  to  him  who  believes  that  he  is  the  mere 
product  of  circumstances,  and  who  does  not  know 
that  a  man's  character  is  the  most  important  factor 
among  the  conditions  that  shape  his  fate.  If  a  man  is 
aware  of  that,  he  will  dare  to  become  the  master  of 
the  circumstances  that  surround  him.  The  most  ur- 
gent step  forwards  is  the  moral  elevation  of  man,  and 
progress  is  no  progress  unless  it  is  accompanied  by  a 
moral  progress  of  man  that  makes  him  stronger  and 
more  humane. 


169 


WORDS  AND  WORK. 


I  had  a  dream  which  was  not  all  a  dream.— Byron. 

I  HAVE  not  been  able  to  study  many  books  this 
summer,  and  I  find  once  more  that  loafing  in  camp 
weakens  discipline.  I  now  see  the  value  of  daily  drill 
although  I  could  not  see  it  when  a  soldier.  I  have 
been  dreaming  away  the  summer,  and  so  great  is  the 
luxury  that  I  have  some  charity  for  the  opium  eater 
who  yields  to  the  fascination,  and  dreams  himself  to 
idiocy  and  to  death.     The  temptation  is  great. 

What  little  reading  I  have  done  has  been  chiefly 
devoted  to  the  dreams  of  others,  notably  the  commu- 
nistic dream  of  Edward  Bellamy,  and  the  anarchistic 
dream  of  Elisee  Reclus.  These  have  a  brotherly  like- 
ness to  each  other,  and  a  family  resemblance  to  the 
dreams  of  seers  and  saints  and  soothsayers,  from  the 
trance  of  Balaam  to  Ezekiel's  vision  of  the  dry  bones 
which  he  conjured  into  men;  from  Belshazzar's  night- 
mare to  the  Apocalypse  of  John ;  from  the  Utopian 
visions  of  Sir  Thomas  More  to  John  Bunyan's  dream, 
told  in  that  immortal  classic  which  sprung  full-armed 
out  of  a  tinker's  brain  ;  from  Walhalla  and  Paradise 
to  the  ideal  Boston  of  Bellamy  ;  and  from  him  to  the 
swarthy  gipsies  who  prophesy  for  sixpence.  All  these 
dreams  and  dreamers  weave  spells  around  emotional 
natures.      In  the  old  slavery  days  before  the  flood  I 


1 70  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

have  seen  Virginia  negroes,  dazzled  by  the  gold  and 
pearl  and  sapphire  of  the  Apocalypse,  lift  up  their 
voices  in  camp-meeting  and  sing  : 

"  John  saw  the  angel  Gaberel 
Sitting  on  a  golden  altar." 

Considering  that  it  was  felony  by  the  law  to  teach 
those  people  to  read,  they  may  be  excused  for  misun- 
derstanding the  text,  and  beholding  the  splendors  of 
liberty  in  the  Heaven  of  John.  Wild,  weird,  and  im- 
possible, as  we  regard  it,  nevertheless  John  had  a 
dream  which  was  not  all  a  dream. 

Dreamers  move  the  world  only  as  they  stimulate 
action.  Work  is  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life ;  and 
work  for  others  is  the  most  religious  prayer  that  man 
can  pray.  Wholesale  philanthropy  is  well,  but  retail 
philanthropy  is  better.  Each  can  pave  his  way  to 
heaven  by  simple  deeds.  We  may  neglect  the  indi- 
vidual sinner  to  preach  comprehensive  plans  of  salva- 
tion until  our  own  salvation  is  lost.  In  our  zeal  to 
reform  systems,  we  may  neglect  little  bits  of  charity 
until  the  gates  of  mercy  close  against  ourselves.  The 
preacher  who  stands  at  the  altar  and  invites  the  peo- 
ple to  come  to  the  eucharist  of  bread  and  wine,  the 
holy  communion  of  equal  brotherhood,  does  well ;  but 
God's  preacher  is  the  man  who  bravely  carries  the 
sacrament  out  of  the  sanctuary  to  the  hovels  of  the 
poor.  It  is  well  to  call  upon  the  people  to  come  to 
the  temples  and  hear  the  word  of  life,  but  it  is  better 
to  carry  the  word  of  life  to  their  houses,  and  a  bit  of 
the  bread  with  it. 

Those  doctrines  were  revealed  unto  me  in  a  vision. 
Most  of  us  who  have  had  a  theological  and  religious 
education  have  had  visions  of  St.  Peter  at  the  gate. 
Many  of  us  are  ashamed   to  acknowledge  it,  but  it  is 


WORDS  AND   WORK.  171 

true  for  all  that,  especially  of  men  like  me,  who  are  in 
the  sunset,  wondering  what  our  Heaven  or  otherwise  is 
to  be.  In  all  my  visionary  interviews  with  the  apostolic 
turnkey  I  have  managed  to  squeeze  through  on  doc- 
trine, although  I  passed  a  very  poor  examination  when 
it  came  to  works.  In  my  last  effort  it  was  a  close 
debate  whether  I  should  get  in  or  stay  out.  I  pleaded 
the  many  good  things  I  had  advocated,  and  the  bad 
things  I  had  rebuked.  "  Yes  !  "  replied  the  venerable 
saint,  ''you  have  said  some  good  things,  but  what 
good  things  have  you  done  ?  What  griefs  have  you 
lifted  from  the  hearts  of  your  fellows  ?  Whose  tears 
have  you  dried  up  ?  You  have  forgiven  the  enemies 
of  other  people,  but  which  of  your  own  enemies  have 
you  pardoned?"  I  was  silent.  "I  shall  let  you 
in,"  he  said,  ''  but  I  cannot  promise  you  a  very  good 
position,  because,  my  son,  you  must  remember  that 
the  man  who  has  given  a  cup  of  cold  water  to  a  thirsty 
soul  takes  higher  rank  in  the  celestial  monarchy  than 
he  who  spent  a  lifetime  in  denouncing  the  mismanage- 
ment of  the  water-works."  I  had  a  dream  which  was 
not  all  a  dream. 

The  hopeful  schemes  of  ''Scientific  "socialism  and 
"  Philosophic "  anarchy  are  only  dreams  of  an  ideal 
state,  for  which  an  ideal  people  must  be  made.  This 
will  require  the  slow  gestation  of  ten  thousand  years. 
I  am  not  sure  that  figs  will  not  grow  on  thistles  after 
proper  grafting  ;  but  the  grafting  must  be  done ;  and 
even  after  that  must  come  the  education  of  the  thistle. 
It  is  only  the  poets  who  can  "  hear  the  feet  of  angels 
coming  down  to  men."  They  do  not  come,  unless  re- 
incarnated as  a  punishment,  and  then  they  are  no 
longer  angels.  Angels  have  their  own  affairs  to  attend 
to,  for  there  is  work  to   do   in  heaven,  and  aspiration 


1 7  2  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

for  a  higher  heaven  still.  Some  day  there  may  be  a 
people  on  this  earth  fitted  to  live  in  the  anticipated 
Boston  of  Mr.  Bellamy,  although  I  am  not  sure  that 
I  should  care  to  dwell  among  them  any  more  than  I 
should  like  to  live  in  a  planet  where  the  oceans  have 
no  tides,  and  the  air  no  storms.  For  all  that,  we 
may  by  individual  effort,  by  retail  philanthropy,  lift 
ourselves  and  others  oiit  of  many  social  evils  up 
towards  the  improved  condition  pictured  in  the  vision. 
Behind  all  my  doubts  and  fears  comes  up  a  hope  that 
Mr.  Bellamy  has  had  a  dream  ^which  is  not  all  a 
dream. 

There  is  something  fascinating  in  the  scheme  of 
•'Philosophic"  anarchy,  ''life  without  government 
and  without  law."  That  is  the  life  that  suits  me,  and 
I  find  that  I  have  been  an  anarchist  from  a  boy.  If  a 
slight  amendment  would  be  in  order  I  would  move  the 
following  addition,  "and  without  work."  For  those 
principles  I  am  ready  to  turn  out  and  carry  a  torch. 
I  never  had  much  schoohng,  and  what  little  there  was 
of  it  was  made  unprofitable  by  precocious  anarchy.  I 
wanted  to  live  "without  law  and  without  authority," 
and  so  I  ran  away  at  every  temptation  to  go  a-swim- 
ming,  and  a-skating,  and  a-fishing,  while  a  band  of 
music  would  troll  me  away  into  the  deepest  cavern  in 
the  mountain  like  the  foolish  children  who  followed 
the  pied  piper  of  Hamelin  ;  and  it  can  do  so  yet.  There 
is  too  much  restraint  upon  me.  I  am  altogether  too 
much  bound  dov/n  by  authority  and  law.  It  would  be 
much  better  if  this  were  otherwise;  better  for  me  I 
mean.  As  for  my  neighbors,  I  must  frankly  say  that 
it  is  better  for  them  that  my  savage  inclinations  be 
restrained. 

I  fear  that  the  virtuous  "Anarchism"  advocated  by 


WORDS  AND   WORK.  173 

Reclus  is  an  impossible  state,  to  which  present  hu- 
manity can  never  attain.  I  fear  it  is  an  ideal  paradise 
never  to  be  enjoyed  by  us  who  live  in  this  real  world. 
I  think  that  Anarchism,  as  he  desires  it,  is  a  revolution 
that  must  follow,  and  cannot  precede,  a  revolution  of 
human  character.  A  state  of  society  where  all  is  jus- 
tice, kindness,  liberty,  and  love,  where  law  and  au- 
thority are  unnecessary,  must  be  based  upon  an  ag- 
gregate humanity  virtuous  and  enlightened,  a  general 
and  individual  character  purified  from  selfishness  and 
greed,  from  low  ambitions  and  the  dross  of  huirian 
pride,  from  lust  and  all  ignoble  passions.  I  believe 
that  such  a  state  is  not  possible  in  our  time,  nor  un- 
der the  conditions  of  our  present  physical,  mental,  and 
moral  organization.  It  may  come  in  the  future,  when 
through  the  slow  education  of  centuries  mankind  shall 
have  reached  another  stage  of  development.  Mean- 
time, '^law  and  authority"  must  both  remain  to  pro- 
tect the  good  against  the  bad,  the  weak  against  the 
strong.  Before  we  can  reach  the  healthy  table  land  of 
the  delectable  mountain,  the  peaceable  Anarchism  of 
Reclus,  we  must  be  relieved  of  that  nature  which  now 
enfolds  us  and  weighs  us  to  the  ground.  Poring  one 
night  over  ^sop's  fables  to  relax  my  mind  which  had 
been  somewhat  strained  by  the  speculations  of  Reclus, 
I  fell  asleep  and  dreamed  a  fable  of  my  own. 

The  mud-turtles  held  a  convention  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  degradation  and  poverty  of  the  mud- 
turtle  classes  of  society.  Delegates  attended  from  all 
the  mud-ponds  round  about,  and  the  convention  was 
honored  by  the  presence  of  some  eloquent  and  distin- 
guished mud-turtles  from  abroad.  The  base  and  grov- 
eling condition  of  the  mud-turtle  classes  was  con- 
trasted with  the  delightful  and  superior   existence  of 


1 74  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

the  birds  of  the  air.  One  eloquent  speaker  said,  ''We 
aspire  not  to  rival  the  eagle  in  the  strength  of  his 
wing,  nor  the  swallow  in  the  swiftness  of  his  flight ; 
we  desire  not  the  plumage  of  the  parrot,  nor  his  power 
to  speak  in  any  language ;  we  ask  not  the  strong  toe- 
nails of  the  hawk,  nor  the  mocking-bird's  gift  of  song ; 
but  is  it  right,  is  it  just,  my  fellow-mud-turtles,  that 
even  the  ignoble  buzzard  should  be  allowed  to  refresh 
himself  with  the  pure  air  of  the  cerulean  heavens,  while 
we  are  limited  to  the  fever-and-ague  districts  of  the 
most  inferior  portions  of  the  earth  ?  Let  us  arise  in 
our  might  and  fly."  The  committee  on  resolutions 
having  adopted  a  platform  in  accordance  with  the  tenor 
of  the  above  remarks,  the  chairman  was  about  to  put 
the  question,  when  a  venerable  mud-turtle  on  a  back 
log-  rose  and  said  : 

"Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Conven- 
tion— Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  that  before  we  can  carry 
out  the  resolutions  of  the  platform  and  fly  like  the 
birds,  we  must  first  discard  the  cumbersome  overcoat 
which  we  are  now  in  the  habit  of  wearing,  and  adopt 
in  place  of  it  a  garment  of  feathers  and  wings?" 

This  fable  teaches.  We  must  fit  ourselves  for  that 
condition  to  which  we  aspire. 


175 


JIM  THE  INVENTOR. 


My  friend  Jim  Short  is  a  mechanic;  and  what  is 
more,  he  is  a  genius  in  mechanics.  Had  he  been 
simply  a  mechanic  he  might  have  prospered  and  made 
money,  but  being  a  genius  he  has  accumulated  nothing 
but  glory,  on  which  he  will  receive  no  dividends  in 
this  world.  They  will  all  go  to  the  multitudinous  cor- 
poration known  as  Homo  Brothers  and  Co.  It  is  a 
surprise  to  Jim  that  this  practical  epoch  does  not  use 
genius  well.  It  has  neither  time  nor  money  to  waste 
on  theoretical  men.  After  a  long  and  weary  search, 
Jim  Short  has  discovered  the  principle  of  perpetual 
motion,  and  he  has  invented  a  machine  to  utilize  it  for 
the  abolition  of  hard  work.  It  needs  only  a  few  more 
wheels  and  pulleys  to  make  it  perfect,  and  then  the 
social  problem  will  be  solved;  we  shall  need  no  exer- 
cise, but  play.  It  unites  the  virtues  of  the  philoso- 
pher's stone,  the  elixir  of  life,  and  the  Balm  of  Gilead. 
It  is  the  supreme  panacea  which,  like  Aaron's  rod,  shall 
swallow  all  the  rest. 

They  give  no  credit  at  the  patent  office,  and  they 
refuse  to  issue  patents  on  ideal  inventions.  They  will 
not  accept  promissory  plans,  models,  and  specifica- 
tions latent  in  the  inventor's  brain.  They  insist  on 
realities  made  of  wood,  and  leather,  and  iron.    This  is 


1 7  6  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

the  prosy  reason  why  Jim  has  not  received  a  patent 
for  his  promise  of  "perpetual  motion."  His  models 
contain  cogs,  wheels,  concentrics,  eccentrics,  and  pul- 
leys enough  for  twenty  patents,  but  because  they  lack 
just  two  trifling  elements,  a  lever  and  a  fulcrum,  the 
department  absurdly  refuses  a  patent,  and  what  is 
worse,  the  government  declines  to  furnish  genius  with 
money  enough  to  supply  the  missing  powers.  The 
people  refuse  faith,  and  the  government  refuses  money. 
That  Jim's  manifold  patterns  do  not  work  is  no  fault 
of  his,  but  of  the  heedless  government  which  declines 
to  render  him  substantial  aid.  His  efforts  being  for 
the  benefit  of  all  the  people,  Jim  thinks  that  the 
government  should  subsidize  his  genius  or  at  least 
encourage  it  with  a  pension,  that  he  may  pursue  his  ex- 
periments above  the  cankering  fear  of  poverty.  Morse 
received  a  subsidy  for  a  promise  of  quick  motion,  and 
why  should  not  Jim  receive  a  like  stimuh^s  for  his 
promise  of  perpetual  motion?  He  wants  a  few  im- 
mediate assets  and  there  are  none  in  the  assurance 
that  he  shall  be  renowned  in  after  ages  like  Watt  and 
Stephenson. 

Jim's  definition  of  his  perpetual  motion  machine  is 
this:  he  describes  it  as  a  mechanical  contrivance  that 
needs  no  food  and  works  for  ever.  It  is  the  one  great 
rniracle  under  the  sun.  The  skeptical  crowd  laugh 
kindly  at  poor  Jim  as  a  visionary  in  mechanical  econ- 
omy. They  easily  detect  the  flaw  in  his  logic,  but  with 
childish  credulity  they  pin  their  own  faith  to  inventors 
in  political  economy  more  visionary  than  Jim.  His 
theory  is  a  panacea  that  works  in  all  emergencies  and 
cures  everything;  so  is  theirs.  Each  of  them  declares 
that  he  has  discovered  the  secret  of  perpetual  motion, 
and  as  soon  as  he  can  supply  a  lever  and  a  fulcrum  to 


JIM  THE  INVENl^OR.  177 

his  machine  he  will  abolish  every  form  of  social  disease. 
Jim  is  not  alone  in  fairy-land.  The  woods  there  are  full 
of  dreamers  fantastical  as  he. 

Forty-five  years  ago,  there  was  a  social  reformer  in 
England,  who  found  "perpetual  motion  "  in  the  spade. 
His  theory  was  to  abolish  the  plow  and  divide  Eng- 
land up  into  four-acre  farms,  to  be  cultivated  by  the 
spade  alone.  This  would  give  employment  to  every- 
body, and  poverty  would  cease  to  be.  He  was  correct, 
because  it  is  very  plain  that  to  cultivate  all  England 
with  the  spade  would  require  the  muscle  of  all  her 
people.  He  put  more  than  a  million  dollars  into  his 
experiment.  He  bought  large  tracts  of  land,  divided 
it  up  into  four  acre  farms,  armed  his  "freeholders" 
with  spades,  and  set  them  to  work.  The  scheme  failed, 
and  the  failure  broke  his  heart.  In  his  efforts  to  find 
the  missing  lever,  fulcrum,  or  whatever  it  was  that  his 
machine  wanted,  he  became  insane,  and  died  at  last  in 
the  lunatic  asylum. 

A  very  popular  "perpetual  motion"  machine  is  the 
panacea  known  as  the  single  tax  on  land-values,  which 
is  to  abolish  poverty.  In  fact  the  proprietary  name  of 
it  stamped  upon  the  bottles,  is  "Anti-Poverty."  All 
other  preparations  for  abolishing  poverty  are  counter- 
feit. Another  inventor,  of  the  type  and  quality  of  Jim, 
assures  me  that  he  has  discovered  "perpetual  motion  " 
in  State  Socialism,  where  all  of  us  are  to  be  absorbed 
into  that  ethereal  Nirvana  which  is  called  "  govern- 
ment," wherein  we  are  to  live  and  move  and  have  our 
being.  Another  tells  me  that  he  has  found  "perpetu- 
al motion"  in  the  principle  of  individualism,  or  an- 
archy, where  government  is  unknown  because  unne- 
cessary; where  every  man  is  his  own  policeman,  club- 
bing himself  over  the  head  whenever  he  does  wrong 


178  WHEELBARROW. 

and  continuously  taking  himself  into  custody.  Another 
assures  me  that  he  has  found  the  great  principle  in 
mutual  banking  and  an  unlimited  supply  of  paper  ten- 
dollar  pieces.  When  every  man  has  a  pocket  full  of 
bank  stock,  Utopia  becomes  a  geographical  fact.  When 
we  can  draw  on  the  bank  for  whatever  amount  we 
need  by  simply  depositing  a  philosopher's  stone  in  the 
safe,  "perpetual  motion"  becomes  a  crystallized  re- 
ality. I  have  a  friend,  an  editor  of  a  newspaper,. who 
writes  me  that  he  has  found  "perpetual  motion"  in  a 
graduated  income  tax  by  which  every  man  is  to  be 
fined  in  proportion  to  his  prosperity,  the  fines  to  go  to 
the  unprosperous.  He  does  not  know  that  this  was  one 
of  the  resources  of  the  French  Republic,  a  hundred 
years  ago,  by  which  "equality"  was  to  be  established 
among  all  the  people. 

Jim,  the  inventor,  is  not  alone  in  his  theories  of 
"perpetual  motion."  He  has  the  company  of  hundreds, 
who  believe  that  they  have  solved  the  riddle  of  ages, 
and  that  their  special  inventions,  if  they  can  only  get 
them  patented,  will  bring  the  millennium  in. 


179 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES. 


I  HAIL  it  as  a  healthy  sign  that  the  political  unrest 
created  by  the  ''Labor"  agitation  has  weakened  the 
division-wall  between  capital  and  labor  in  Chicago  ; 
and  let  us  hope  that  in  due  time  the  wall  will  be  shaken 
down.  At  last  some  of  the  just  and  more  enlightened 
men  of  the  wealthy  class  hold  out  their  hands  to  the 
laborers  and  say,  '^  Come,  let  us  reason  together. "  This 
invitation  has  been  accepted,  and  the  result  is  an  in- 
terchange of  opinions  through  the  medium  of  ''Eco- 
nomic Conferences,"  where  all  sides  may  be  heard. 

That  we  are  in  a  state  of  social  war  is  due  largely 
to  the  ignorant  rich.  They  have  made  themselves  a 
caste  having  rights,  to  whom  the  poor  are  a  caste  owing 
duties.  The  rich  who  are  not  ignorant  must  also  bear 
a  part  of  the  responsibility.  They  have  wrapped  them- 
selves in  pleasure,  and  have  avoided  the  meetings 
and  discussions  of  the  working  men.  They  have  aban- 
doned the  laborer  to  his  errors,  and  made  an  enemy  of 
him  who  might  have  been  a  friend.  They  have  shorn 
the  locks,  and  put  out  the  eyes  of  Samson,  but  his  arms 
clasp  the  pillars  of  the  temple.  They  have  left  the 
working  man  to  his  passions  and  allowed  him  to  be- 
come the  spoil  of  demagogues  and  blind  leaders  of  the 
blind.  They  refuse  to  meet  the  laborer  in  debate,  and 
then  they  reproach  him  for  his  fantastic  visions  of  a 
new  and  impossible  society.     They  decline  ^o  guide 


1 80  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

the  people  right  and  then  complain  because  others 
guide  them  wrong. 

When  the  wild  and  irrational  tactics  of  the  Trades 
Unions  alarmed  Great  Britain  fifty-five  years  ago, 
Macauley  warned  the  ignorant  rich  and  the  luxurious 
rich  that  because  of  their  neglect  the  poor  had  fallen 
under  evil  guidance,  and  he  adapted  the  parable  of 
Gotham  to  the  social  condition  of  England.  The  trees 
having  decided  to  elect  a  King,  the  vine  would  not  ac- 
cept the  office  because  of  its  cheeriness,  and  the  olive 
would  not  because  of  its  fatness,  and  the  fig-tree  would 
not  because  of  its  sweetness ;  so  the  bramble  was 
anointed  King,  and  out  of  the  bramble  came  the  fire 
that  devoured  the  Cedars  of  Lebanon. 

I  greet  these  conferences  as  a  truce  to  barbarian 
methods  on  both  sides,  to  the  vengeance  of  the  bomb, 
and  the  vengeance  of  the  gallows.  There  are  moral 
forces  throbbing  in  the  rich  and  poor  alike,  and  out  of 
these  forces  all  measures  of  reform  must  come.  Phys- 
ical and  intellectual  powers  make  changes,  but  only 
moral  forces  make  reforms.  It  is  not  true  that  in  this 
land  we  have  reached  the  alternative  between  anarchy 
in  robes  and  anarchy  in  rags. 

In  the  *^  Conference  "  course  the  opening  was  given 
to  the  working  men,  and  the  first  lecture  was  by  Mr. 
Geo.  A.  Schilling,  an  eloquent  man  and  a  leader  in  the 
^'  order. "  His  theme  was  '*  The  Objects  of  the  Knights 
of  Labor."  The  hall  was  crowded,  and  the  audience 
was  highly  charged  with  mental  and  spiritual  elec- 
tricity. The  positive  and  negative  elements  of  oppos- 
ing social  forces  were  under  very  active  excitement, 
while  the  banker  and  the  blacksmith,  the  millionaire 
and  laborer  jostled  each  other  in  their  eagerness  to 
hear  a  V  Knight "  of  the  latter  day  crusade  which  is  to 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  i8i 

rescue  the  holy  land  from  lords,  rents,  mortgages,  and 
monopolies,  a  soldier  in  the  chivalry  of  labor.  It  re- 
minded me  that  when  I  was  a  youth  in  England,  it 
suddenly  became  the  fashion  for  earls  and  barons  and 
bishops  to  come  to  the  Mechanics'  Institutes  and  lecture 
to  the  working  men.  They  spoke  to  us  with  a  patron- 
izing air,  and  we  listened  with  humility  as  became  our 
lower  station.  At  Mr.  Schilling's  lecture  I  was  glad  to 
see  that  neither  ''order"  was  disposed  to  ask  or  offer 
patronage.  The  genius  of  the  occasion  was  democratic 
and  its  influence  was  good. 

Mr.  Schilling  spoke  as  an  advocate,  and  yet  he  de- 
clared himself  opposed  to  some  of  the  especial  objects 
of  the  order.  He  confessed  that  radical  differences  of 
opinion  existed  among  the  Knights  themselves  as  to 
the  wisdom  of  their  own  constitution  in  some  of  its 
essential  claims.  He  was  himself  an  extreme  individ- 
ualist, opposed  to  the  theory  and  doctrine  of  state 
socialism  on  which  the  order  itself  was  built.  He  would 
restrict,  and  not  extend  the  powers  of  government. 
More  dangerous  to  the  order  than  the  men  within  it 
of  opposite  opinions,  are  the  thousands  of  its  members 
who  have  no  opinions  at  all.  From  all  this  it  is  easy 
to  predict  the  early  dissolution  of  the  society.  In  the 
evolution  of  organized  labor  it  must  give  way  to  more 
scientific  agencies;  to  a  higher  order  of  Knighthood 
able  to  contend  with  the  actualities  of  life,  and  to  mus- 
ter into  service  all  the  moral  forces  of  the  time. 

Mr.  Schilling  is  an  enthusiast,  and  his  argument 
had  much  of  the  strength  and  some  of  the  weakness 
that  belong  to  enthusiasm.  Parts  of  it  reminded  me 
of  the  Wendell  Phillippics  I  heard  long  ago.  He  said, 
"  The  hanging  of  a  few  agitators  will  not  abolish  pop- 
ular discontent."   This  is  true,  because  the  discontent 


1 82  WHEELS  A  RR  O  W. 

will  remain  so  long  as  the  reason  for  it  remains.  John 
Ball  organized  the  Knights  of  Labor  in  England  five 
hundred  years  ago.  The  government  hung  John  Ball, 
but  the  Knights  had  more  necks  than  the  government 
had  ropes,  and  the  order  in  some  form  or  other  has 
lived  on  to  this  day.  The  weakness  of  Mr.  Schilling 
was  his  apology  for  the  exclusive,  aristocratic,  monop- 
olistic principle  which  actuates  the  Knights  of  Labor. 
It  is  no  excuse  that  the  working  man,  suffering  under 
a  sense  of  wrong,  his  home  forever  haunted  by  the 
ghost  of  hunger,  has  a  right  to  clutch  at  the  law  of 
self-preservation,  and  shut  his  fellow  craftsmen  out  of 
that  part  of  the  labor  market  where  his  own  muscle  is 
offered  for  sale.  He  has  no  such  right,  and  the  asser- 
tion of  it  has  ever  been  the  weakness  of  the  Trades 
Unions,  and  the  Knights  of  Labor.  The  Exclusion 
principle  is  unjust,  and  like  every  other  injustice  it 
carries  punishment  and  failure  upon  its  wings.  Labor 
statesmanship,  like  all  other  statesmanship,  must  stand 
on  a  moral  foundation,  or  it  will  not  permanently 
stand.  The  objects  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  cannot 
be  separated  from  their  methods,  and  they  must  all  be 
criticised  together. 

Among  the  objects  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  was 
this:  ''The  greatest  good  for  the  greatest  number," 
and  Mr.  Schilling's  own  defense  was  evidence  that  in 
the  mathematics  of  the  Knights  the  greatest  number  is 
number  one.  It  is  a  deceitful  phrase  always  used  to 
cloak  the  tyranny  of  those  who  claim  to  act  for  ''  the 
greatest  number."  In  political  morality  there  is  no 
such  principle,  because  it  implies  a  smallest  number 
outside  the  Common  Weal ;  a  smallest  number  entitled 
only  to  the  smallest  good.  I  never  see  this  popular 
bit  of  sophistry  without  looking  behind  it  for  some  in- 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  183 

justice  which  it  covers,  and  I  generally  find  it.  Slavery 
used  to  be  justified  ^or  ''the  greatest  good  of  the 
greatest  number,"  and  in  the  present  case  the  senti- 
ment is  used  to  excuse  practices  which  in  themselves 
are  indefensible,  harsh  regulations  which  arrest  liberty, 
which  make  work  for  one  man  and  idleness  for  another, 
which  are  supposed  to  make  high  wages  for  the 
''  Knight,"  and  low  wages  for  the  churl.  I  advise  the 
Knights  to  erase  that  false  motto  from  their  coat  of 
arms,  and  substitute  for  it  ''the  greatest  good  for  all." 
Mr.  Schilling  claimed,  and  with  success,  that  the 
use  of  machinery  in  the  mechanic  arts  and  the  subdi- 
vision of  hard  hand  and  brain  labor  into  easy  elements 
had  changed  industrial  conditions  and  had  silently 
worked  a  social  revolution  in  50  years  ;  a  revolution  in 
which  the  working  men  had  altogether  the  worst  of  it, 
and  whereby  capital  had  multiplied  its  power  ;  a  revo- 
lution by  which  the  master  has  become  a  more  and 
more  intelligent  energy,  and  the  workman  a  more  and 
more  unimportant  and  unintelligent  hostler,  harnessing 
and  unharnessing,  driving  and  grooming  the  machine. 
Of  the  multiplied  product  the  greater  part  had  gone  to 
the  owner  of  the  machine,  and  very  little  to  the  hostler. 
This  was  not  the.exact  language  of  Mr.  Schillingj  but  it 
was  the  substance  of  his  claim,  and  I  think  he  was  right. 
Ingenious  machinery  has  broken  up  several  of  the  me- 
chanic trades  into  separate  bits  of  work,  each  one  of 
them  requiring  very  little  strength  and  very  little  skill. 
Whereformerly  twenty  men  made  twenty  watches,  each 
man  making  one,  twenty  girls  will  now  make  two  hun- 
dred watches  in  twenty  separate  parts.  The  girls  sim- 
ply tend  the  machines  whose  cunning  fingers  make  the 
wheels,  and  springs,  and  all  the  inside  works  with  a 
delicacy  and  precision  that  human  fingers  cannot  imi- 


1 84  WHEELBARROW. 

tate.  The  shoemaker  is  becoming  extinct  like  the  In- 
dian. The  shoes  are  made  in  parts  by  different  ma- 
chines. Furniture  is  made  in  the  same  way,  and  cabi- 
net making  will  soon  be  among  the  forgotten  arts. 
This  evolution  of  industry  is  the  puzzle  of  economics, 
the  despair  of  politics.  That  this  multiplied  product  is 
a  blessing  to  mankind  is  true.  It  is  immensely  for  the 
greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number,  but  there  is  a 
smallest  number  stunned  and  bewildered  by  the  revo- 
lution claiming  that  society  has  abolished  its  means  of 
existence,  and  giving  back  to  it  no  compensation  out  of 
the  increased  abundance.  That  society  will  adapt  itself 
in  time  to  the  changed  conditions  is  true,  but  while  so- 
ciety is  doing  it  two  million  willing  hands  are  reaching 
out  for  work  and  are  unable  to  obtain  it. 

I  know  the  claim  is  made  that  the  increased  product 
is  fairly  divided,  although  not  equally  divided  and  that 
the  working  men  are  getting  absolutely  and  relatively  a 
greater  share  of  it  than  capital  receives.  Mr.  Edward 
Atkinson  asserts  that  the  rate  of  wages  has  been  increas- 
ing absolutely  in  more  money,  and  relatively  in  lower 
prices  for  what  the  workman  has  to  buy.  He  proves  it  by 
the  statistics  of  60  years.  His  figures  are  fallacious,  for 
the  problem  is  not  the  rate  of  wages  and  the  price  of  pro- 
visions to  the  man  in  work,  but  the  puzzle  is  this,  what  is 
the  rate  of  wages  of  the  man  who  is  earning  nothing  ? 
And  what  is  the  cost  of  provisions  to  the  man  who  is  not 
getting  any  wages  at  all  ?  The  million  or  two  of  willing 
workers  who  are  not  able  to  obtain  work  is  a  factor  in 
the  problem  that  confuses  the  statistics,  and  gives  a 
moral  contradiction  to  the  mathematical  proof.  Labor 
is  not  prosperous  wherever  there  is  an  over-production 
of  men. 

While  our  moralists  and  statesmen  stand  baffled  and 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  185 

dumb  in  the  presence  of  this  ugly  fact,  is  it  any  wonder 
that  untaught  laborers  blunder  in  their  statesmanship 
too?  Is  it  any  wonder  that  like  the  fly  in  the  spider's 
web  they  entangle  themselves  more  and  more  in  their 
efforts  to  be  free  ?  Must  we  expect  more  wisdom  in 
them  than  in  their  masters?  More  virtues  too?  They 
will  strug'gle  for  better  things.  They  may  not  struggle 
wisely,  but  they  will  not  lie  down.  If  their  plans  are 
vicious  help  them  to  better  plans.  Society  must  learn 
that  moral  consequences  are  not  to  be  evaded,  and 
that  justice  must  be  done.  Working  men  begin  to  see 
how  precarious  is  their  bread.  They  begin  to  see  how 
«*.asy  it  is  to  'Mock  them  out  "  whenever  the  ''trust  " 
they  are  working  for,  chooses  to  "shut  down  "  in  order 
to  make  scarcity  and  raise  prices.  In  the  midst  of  the 
ills  they  suffer,  and  the  greater  ills  that  threaten  them, 
it  is  folly  to  expect  that  working  men  will  quietly  lie 
down  and  patiently  await  their  doom.  "  I  shall  be  made 
into  soup  to-morrow,"  says  the  turtle  in  the  restaurant 
window  to  the  passers-by,  but  we  must  not  expect  suoh 
calm  philosophy  as  that  from  the  American  working 
man. 

*'  The  Earth  is  the  Lord's,  and  the  fullness  thereof"; 
and  according  to  the  Knights  of  Labor  it  belongs  to  all 
his  creatures.  Literally,  they  want  the  earth,  and  this 
claim  is  endorsed  by  Mr.  Schilling.  He  is  opposed  to 
the  private  ownership  of  land,  or  as  he  called  it  the 
monopoly  of  land.  He  contended  that  all  the  people 
should  have  free  access  to  the  land,  and  that  mines 
ought  never  to  be  private  property.  He  said  if  the 
coal  mines  of  Pennsylvania  had  not  been  owned  by  a 
few  rich  barons  the  strikes  would  not  have  occurred. 
Perhaps  the  strongest  point  in  his  lecture  was  this,  and 
the  strength  of  it  was  due  not  so  much  to  its  abstract 


1 86  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

merit  as  to  the  fact  that  the  avaricious  combinations  of 
mine-owners  increase  the  price  of  coal,  while  their  ab- 
solute control  of  the  markets  enables  them  to  **  lock 
out  "  the  miners  at  any  time  when  they  want  to  stiffen 
prices  by  making  scarcity.  Land  ownership  although 
its  abuses  may  be  modified,  can  hardly  be  abolished. 
Give  a  man  free  access  to  the  land  and  the  very  day  he 
applies  his  labor  to  it,  he  becomes  entitled  to  some  se- 
curity for  its  permanent  possession,  and  ownership  is 
nothing  more  than  that.  Ownership  of  land  has  always 
developed  the  free  spirit  of  a  people,  and  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  it  is  possible  to  abolish  the  freehold 
without  abolishing  freedom  too. 

Mr.  Schilling  was  opposed  to  the  demand  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor  that  the  capricious  power  called 
''Government"  should  own  and  operate  all  the  rail- 
roads, canals,  telegraphs,  banks,  boats,  bridges,  gas 
works,  water  works,  express  companies,  and  other  en- 
terprises, on  the  principle  that  government  becomes 
despotic  in  proportion  to  its  power,  and  for  the  further 
reason  that  government  is  not  able  to  work  as  efficiently 
and  cheaply  as  private  individuals  can.  The  whole 
question  is  one  of  expediency  rather  than  of  principle 
and  depends  greatly  on  the  conditions  that  surround 
the  government,  and  on  the  elements  that  comprise  it. 
In  this  country  the  scheme  would  be  a  good  thing  for 
"the  party  in  power."  It  would  make  the  tenure  of 
office  permanent,  and  settle  the  question  of  civil-service 
reform.  At  the  last  presidential  election  all  the  mail 
carriers  marched  in  the  Blaine  procession.  Had  all 
the  railroad  men  and  telegraph  men  and  the  rest  of 
them  joined  in  the  line,  we  should  have  seen  at  once 
how  hopeless  would  be  any  attempt  to  ' '  turn  the  rascals 
out."     And  it  is  a  curious  phenomenon  in  this  country 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  187 

that  the  *' ins"  are  always  the  rascals  and  the  ''outs" 
the  honest  men. 

In  some  respects  the  Knights  of  Labor  builded  bet- 
ter than  they  knew,  and  better  than  they  ever  meant  to 
build.  For  instance  in  the  demand  that  women  shall 
have  equal  rights  with  men  for  equal  work.  This  has 
come  to  mean  not  only  the  right  of  women  to  equal 
wages,  but  the  equal  right  of  women  to  earn  wages 
wherever  they  can,  and  this  meaning  is  given  to  the 
claim  by  many  of  the  Knights,  perhaps  by  a  majority  of 
them  now.  It  was  not  so  intended  in  the  beginning. 
Behind  the  fair  face  of  it  was  concealed  a  sinister  de- 
sign. The  intention  of  it  was,  though  all  the  Knights 
may  not  have  known  it,  to  draw  the  line  between  men 
and  women  at  the  sewing  machine,  and  to  drive  the 
women  back  behind  that  line.  It  was  thought  that  if 
this  demand  for  equal  wages  could  be  enforced,  em- 
ployers would  say,  ''well,  if  we  must  pay  the  same 
wages  to  women  as  to  men,  we  may  as  well  have  men." 
Some  of  the  Knights  have  a  hope  that  such  will  be  the 
effect  of  it  yet,  but  most  of  them  are  now,  as  a  few  of 
them  have  always  been,  sincere  in  their  claim  of  equality 
for  women.  Besides,  the  women  are  so  strongly  in- 
trenched in  the  professions,  the  clerical  employments, 
and  the  lighter  mechanical  trades,  that  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  turn  them  out.  In  this,  as  in  some  other 
things,  the  order  has  had  an  educational  influence  on  its 
members.  Its  successor,  for  it  will  have  a  successor, 
will  abandon  many  of  its  claims  and  dogmas  as  gladly 
as  men  discard  old  boots  that  never  fitted  them.  The 
new  order  will  be  wiser  and  better  than  the  old  one. 

The  means  by  which  the  Objects  of  the  Knights  of 
Labor  are  to  be  achieved  according  to  Mr.  Schilling, 
are  Agitation,  Education,  and  Co-operation.     I  have 


1 88  WHEELBA  RR  O  W. 

only  room  for  a  remark  on  the  Education  plan.  When 
Mr.  SchilHng  was  asked  if  the  Knights  included  in 
their  scheme  of  *' education "  the  instruction  of  the 
hand,  the  right  of  a  boy  to  be  educated  in  a  trade,  he 
would  only  answer  affirmatively  for  himself,  and  was 
not  willing  to  do  so  for  the  Knights  of  Labor.  It  is 
well  known  that  the  Knights  of  Labor  restrict  the  edu- 
cation of  the  hand,  which  they  have  no  more  right  to 
do  than  they  have  to  restrict  the  education  of  the 
mind.  They  have  no  more  right  to  forbid  a  boy  to 
learn  a  trade  than  they  have  to  forbid  him  to  learn 
reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic,  for  by  the  aid  of  these 
he  may  some  time  or  other  compete  with  some  Knight 
for  a  job.  They  have  no  more  right  to  sentence  a  boy 
to  hard  labor  for  life  with  a  shovel,  a  wheelbarrow,  and 
a  hod,  than  they  have  to  sentence  him  to  hard  labor  in 
the  penitentiary.  So  long  as  they  persist  in  doing  it, 
they  will  fail  to  get  the  sympathy  of  just  and  liberal 
men  outside  the  order,  and  they  will  lose  the  sympathy 
of  many  just  and  liberal  men  inside  of  it.  Their  plat- 
form must  come  to  the  test  of  the  spirit-level,  and  all 
its  inequalities  must  be  planed  away.  Otherwise  the 
order  will  be  an  obstacle  in  the  path  to  liberty,  a  hin- 
drance to  the  elevation  of  labor. 


189 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES. 


BANKING  AND  THE  SOCIAL  SYSTEM. 

The  first  lecture  in  the  '' Economic  Conference  " 
course  was  by  Mr.  George  A.  Schilling,  a  working 
man;  the  second  by  Mr.  Lyman  J.  Gage,  a  banker. 
Mr.  Gage  chose  for  his  theme  "  Banking  and  the  So- 
cial System."  He  spoke  eloquently,  and  in  a  digni- 
fied way  addressed  himself  to  the  intelligence,  and 
not  the  prejudices,  of  the  congregatipn.  He  took  an 
optimistic  view  of  our  social  future,  but  was  fully 
alive  to  the  dangers  of  the  present,  manifested  in 
what  he  called  the  ''  industrial  revolt."  He  said  some 
things  which  required  courage  to  say,  but  he  made 
no  attempt  to  flatter  his  audience  nor  the  larger  con- 
gregation outside.  Claiming  that  the  world  was  grow- 
ing better,  and  not  worse,  he  said  : 

"The  rising  sun  of  Christianity  drove  back  the  clouds  of 
pagan  superstition,  and  brought  to  light  the  true  dignity  of  man 
as  a  moral  being,  and  revealed  a  nobler  deity.  The  Reformation 
broke  the  power  of  a  dominant  religio-political  church  disposed 
to  hold  in  mental  subjection  those  it  had  made  free  from  the  in- 
fluence of  pagan  superstition  ;  and  finally  modern  rationalism  has 
purified  the  reformation,  and  promises  to  free  the  mind  from 
bondage  to  spiritual  tyranny  of  every  kind." 

Mr.  Gage  advocated' our  present  banking  system 
as  a  necessary  and  valuable  ingredient  in  American 
social  organization,  and  in  this  he  was  right,  if  the  pre- 


1 90  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

vailing  conditions  that  encompass  labor,  trade,  and 
capital,  are  natural,  just,  and  wise.  A  large  majority 
of  his  audience,  however,  believe  that  the  National 
Banking  System  is  an  eruption  on  the  surface  of  so- 
ciety indicating  impurities  within,  and  this  impression 
Mr.  Gage  did  not  remove,  although  he  was  quite  suc- 
cessful in  showing  the  necessity  of  banks  to  a  farming, 
manufacturing,  and  commercial  people.  He  reasoned 
thus:  Exchange  of  products  is  a  good  thing,  banking 
facilitates  exchange  of  products,  therefore  the  Na- 
tional Bank  System  is  good.  I  see  a  fallacy  in  this  rea- 
soning although  I  may  not  be  able  to  separate  it  from 
the  tangle  of  the  argument.  I  have  heard  the  war 
praised  by  stump  orators  in  the  same  way.  They  said 
the  National  Banks  provide  a  sound  currency,  because 
the  notes  are  secured  by  national  bonds,  which  are 
secured  by  national  debt,  made  by  national  war.  No 
war  no  debt,  no  debt  no  bonds,  no  bonds  no  banks,  no 
banks  no  currency.  I  know  this  chain  has  a  flaw  in  it 
although  it  appears  to  be  sound. 

Mr.  Gage,  instead  of  defending  the  National  Bank 
System  as  a  monopoly  necessary  to  a  safe  currency 
maintained  that  it  was  no  monopoly  at  all,  and  he 
gave  us  the  dictionary  meaning  of  the  word.  Work- 
ing men  care  little  about  the  etymology  of  a  word,  or 
the  Latin  or  the  Greek  of  it;  they  regard  only  the  fact 
it  expresses.  It  may  be  true  that  monopoly  means 
the  '*  sole  power  "  to  carry  on  a  certain  business,  and 
that  National  Banks  have  no  such  power  because  any 
five  men  with  fifty  thousand  dollars  may  start  a  Na- 
tional Bank ;  nevertheless,  if  the  law  confers  upon 
National  Banks  certain  privileges  which  other  banks 
have  not,  then  to  the  full  extent  of  those  privileges 
they  have  what  may  be  practically,  if  not  grammatic- 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  191 

ally,  called  a  monopoly.  I  do  not  mean  that  every 
monopoly  is  mischievous  because  it  is  a  monopoly,  it 
may  in  fact  be  beneficial  to  the  community,  as  Mr. 
Gage  is  competent  to  show. 

When  Mr.  Gage  gave  us  the  catalogue  of  powers 
and  privileges  enjoyed  by  the  National  Banks,  he  for- 
got to  mention  the  most  important  one  of  all,  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  issue  currency.  A  prohibitory  tax  of  ten 
per  cent,  upon  the  circulating  notes  of  all  private  banks 
and  bankers  limits  the  issue  of  currency  to  the  Na- 
tional Banks.  The  reason  given  for  this  is  the  duty 
of  protecting  the  people  from  what  is  known  as  Wild- 
cat banking,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  rea- 
son is  a  good  one.  This  is  an  important  question, 
because  the  prejudice  of  the  working  men  against 
the  National  Banks  is  largely  built  upon  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  '^ money  power,"  given  to  the  banks 
by  the  exclusive  privileges  to  issue  currency.  Mr. 
Gage  was  very  successful  in  showing  that  this  priv- 
ilege is  not  so  valuable  as  people  think  it  is.  His 
figures  must  have  surprised  his  audience.  He  said 
that  the  Chicago  banks  with  a  right  to  issue  fourteen 
million  dollars  in  National  Bank  notes,  have  outstand- 
ing less  than  one  million  dollars  of  such  notes;  while 
all  the  National  Banks  in  the  country,  with  a  right  to 
issue  about  five  hundred  millions  of  such  notes,  have 
outstanding  only  about  one  hundred  and  sixty-six 
millions. 

Although  the  title  of  his  lecture  was  *' Banking 
and  the  Social  System,"  Mr.  Gage  did  not  clearly 
show  any  moral  agreement  between  the  National  Banks 
and  our  social  System  as  it  ought  to  be.  He  spoke 
on  the  social  question  and  he  spoke  well,  but  he  has 
placed  himself  under  the  yoke    of  the  political  econ- 


1 92  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

omists  and  allowed  himself  to  be  awed  by  their  por- 
tentous jargon  and  their  stately  axioms.  He  is  a  vic- 
tim of  the  patent  medicine  men  who  profess  the  ''  dis- 
mal science."  They  take  a  few  accidental  facts,  gen- 
eralize them  into  a  principle,  express  this  in  a  rotund 
formula,  and  then  impose  it  upon  everybody  as  an 
orthodox  prescription. 

After  comparing  the  labor  "  trusts"  and  the  cap- 
ital ''  trusts,"  and  showing  that  any  unnatural  profits 
made  by  either  of  them  must  result  in  drawing  com- 
petitors to  the  trade  or  business  in  such  numbers  that 
the  profits  vanish,  leaving  the  competition  behind  to 
plague  the  investors  of  the  trust,  Mr.  Gage  was  be- 
trayed into  the  mistake  of  wrapping  up  his  whole  argu- 
ment in  the  ponderous  old  formula  compiled  by  the 
medicine  men  about  the  rate  of  wages.  He  said,  "the 
wages  of  labor  will  rise  and  fall  as  the  number  of 
wage-workers  increases  or  diminishes  in  relation  to 
the  existing  quantity  of  capital.  If  capital  increase 
in  a  greater  ratio  than  the  population,  wages  will  rise. 
If  the  population  increase  in  a  faster  ratio  than  cap- 
ital, wages  will  fall.  No  combination  can  long  resist 
the  silent  but   irresistible  influence  of  this  principle." 

I  think  there  is  no  such  principle,  and  the  claim 
for  it  appears  to  have  no  foundation  except  an  occa- 
sional example.  We  see  it  verified  in  particular  cases, 
and  erroneously  think  that  it  is  of  universal  applica- 
tion. I  am  often  stunned  by  the  heavy  maxims  thrown 
at  me  by  the  economists,  and  before  I  have  time  to 
recover  my  senses  I  have  confessed  their  claim.  Long 
ago  I  was  confused  by  this  maxim,  but  when  I  brought 
a  little  moral  intelligence  to  bear  on  it,  I  saw  that  its 
character  was  bad,  and  as  it  was  unsound  in  ethics  I 
knew  that  it  was  unsound  in  politics  too.     Out  of  it 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  193 

grows  the  arrogant  theory  of  a  '*  surplus  population," 
the  surplus  being  always  the  unemployed  poor,  and 
never  the  unemployed  rich.  Out  of  it  grows  the  can- 
nibalistic doctrine  that  working  men  must  eat  one  an- 
other or  perish.  It  makes  every  wage-worker  the  com- 
petitor and  the  enemy  of  every  other.  It  elevates  war 
to  the  dignity  of  a  moral  science  because  it  kills  men 
and  diminishes  the  number  of  wage-workers.  Capital 
never  makes  wages  except  for  its  own  profit,  popula- 
tion makes  wages  by  creating  a  demand  for  supplies. 
Very  often  the  wage-worker  creates  the  capital  before 
he  can  draw  any  share  of  it  as  wages.  Let  us  test 
the  principle  by  the  known  increase  of  capital  in  the 
United  States. 

In  1884,  Mr.  Blaine,  in  a  carefully  prepared  paper, 
said  that  the  capital  of  the  United  States  had  increased 
from  fourteen  thousand  million  dollars  in  i860,  to  forty- 
four  thousand  million  dollars  in  1880.  An  increase 
of  thirty  thousand  million  dollars  in  twenty  years,  al- 
though during  four  years  of  that  time  the  wealth  of  the 
nation  was  wasted  in  war,  and  wage-workers  were 
killed  by  the  thousands.  Does  Mr.  Gage  believe  that 
wages  increased  in  the  ratio  of  increased  capital,  even 
allowing  that  it  increased  at  all  ?  His  formula  might 
be  correct  if  amended  thus  :  '*  If  capital  increase  in  a 
greater  ratio  than  the  population,  wages  ought  to  rise." 
His  proposition  fails  because  there  is  no  power  in  so- 
cial economics  to  compel  men  to  pay  high  wages,  but 
population  is  driven  by  natural  forces  to  make  wages  be- 
cause men  must  eat,  wear  clothes,  and  live  in  houses. 
To  provide  for  its  own  comfortable  existence  population 
sets  all  the  wheels  of  industry  in  motion.  The  workers 
create  the  capital,  and  we  invent  an  economic  contra- 
diction when  we  make  increased  capital  attendant  on 


194  WHEELBARROW. 

the  diminished  number  of  the  people  who  produce  it. 
Men  are  driven  to  supply  their  own  wants  by  labor, 
and  thus  make  wages  for  each  other.  The  reason  they 
do  not  make  high  wages  is  because  their  energies  are 
not  free  ;  artificial  obstructions  are  placed  in  the  way 
of  industrial  ambition;  the  worker's  natural  resources 
are  withheld  from  him  by  law,  and  that  '*  increased 
capital  "  which  Mr.  Gage  thinks  raises  wages,  is  com- 
bined successfully  in  a  hundred  ways  for  the  purpose 
of  keeping  wages  down 

Because  the  working  men  themselves  have  been  led 
into  many  follies  and  some  crimes  through  their  belief 
in  this  doctrine,  I  wish  to  show  its  influence  on  them. 
It  did  more  than  any  other  article  in  Labor's  creed  to 
freeze  up  the  sympathies  of  the  English  working  men. 
We  were  always  praying  for  war  so  that  ^*  capital  might 
increase  in  a  greater  ratio  than  population."  When 
cholera  swept  the  land  we  saw  the  triumph  of  the  prin- 
ciple and  rejoiced.  When  a  colliery  explosion  killed 
two  hundred  men,  although  we  felt  actual  sorrow, 
there  was  mingled  with  our  grief  some  abstract  joy, 
for  the  ratio  of  population  to  capital  was  lessened,  and 
we  had  fewer  competitors  in  the  labor  market.  This 
false  economics  hardened  our  hearts  and  debased  our 
character.  How  could  there  be  brotherhood  among 
men  who  believed  they  were  taking  bread  from  one 
another  ?  I  was  cured  of  the  doctrine  by  an  old  farmer 
in  Vermont,  and  I  cheerfully  advertise  his  recipe. 

Shortly  after  landing  in  this  country  I  got  a  job  of 
work  in  building  a  railroad  near  the  town  of  Windsor 
in  that  State,  and  the  digging  was  very  hard.  One 
day  we  were  knocked  off  on  account  of  rain,  and  I  put 
in  the  day  doing  chores  for  a  farmer  whose  house  was 
close  to  the  shanty  where  I  lived.     That  night  he  gave 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  195 

me  a  good  supper,  and  after  supper  we  sat  outside  on 
the  door  step  and  "calmly  smoked  and  jawed."  I 
felt  that  I  was  an  intruder  upon  the  United  States  be- 
cause I  was  adding  one  more  to  the  labor  population, 
and  diminishing  the  rate  of  wages  in  that  "ratio." 
My  farmer  friend  was  polite  enough  to  say  that  no  apol- 
ogies were  necessary,  and  that  the  obligation  was  all 
on  the  other  side ;  that  in  point  of  fact  the  United 
States  of  America  was  much  indebted  to  me  for  com- 
ing. "I  reckon  you,"  he  said,  "  as  a  clear  gain  of 
one  thousand  dollars  to  the  capital  of  the  country." 
This  wild  heresy  bewildered  me,  and  I  explained  to 
him  that  I  did  not  bring  five  cents  with  me  to  buy  a 
welcome,  but  he  insisted  that  brawn  and  brain  were 
part  of  a  nation's  capital,  and  the  source  of  all  its  cap- 
ital, that  population  and  capital  must  increase  and 
diminish  together,  and  that  they  were  not  antagonistic 
factors  in  fixing  the  rate  of  wages.  I  see  now  that  he 
was  right,  although  I  did  not  see  it  then ;  and  while 
particular  exception  to  his  principle  may  be  found  in 
actual  business,  yet  I  am  convinced  that  when  applied 
to  the  vast  aggregate  of  the  nation  including  all  its 
population  and  all  its  capital,  his  doctrine  is  morally 
and  politically  sound. 

I  follow  the  old  man's  argument  as  well  as  I  can ; 
it  was  something  like  this :  A  healthy  young  man  of 
twenty,  working  on  the  railroad,  receives  as  wages  one 
dollar  a  day.  Allowing  for  loss  of  time  by  reason  of 
rainy  days  and  other  causes,  and  giving  him  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  days  work  in  a  year,  he  receives  in  ten 
years  two  thousand  five  hundred  dollars.  His  work  is 
worth  more  than  that.  He  has  certainly  put  three 
thousand  five  hundred  dollars  into  the  railroad  values  of 
the  country.     This  is  a  contribution  of  one  thousand 


1 96  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

dollars  to  the  capital  of  the  nation  in  ten  years.  This 
rule  will  apply  to  all  the  other  workers,  and  Mr.  Blaine's 
figures  are  evidence  that  the  estimate  is  low.  Admit- 
ting that  large  numbers  of  men  are  a  loss  instead  of  a 
gain,  that  they  eat  more  than  they  earn,  nevertheless, 
when  the  national  balance  is  struck  the  result  is  an 
enormous  aggregate  gain.  Another  test  is  this.  Every 
generation  leaves  behind  it  something  for  the  succeed- 
ing one,  proving  that  increase  of  population  and  in- 
crease of  capital  are  in  direct  proportion  to  each  other, 
and  that  the  relations  between  them  are  not  to  be  esti- 
mated by  the  Inverse  Rule  of  Three. 

I  once  heard  a  judge  tell  a  lawyer  that  statutes  are 
to  be  construed  in  favor  of  human  life.  This  rule  ex- 
tends beyond  human  codes.  It  is  the  law  of  the 
moral  universe,  and  political  economy  cannot  reverse 
it.  The  doctrine  quoted  by  Mr.  Gage  is  in  favor  of 
human  death.  It  makes  living  men  a  dead  weight 
upon  the  public  weal,  a  dangerous  paradox.  What 
does  Mr.  Gage  himself  say  in  refutation  of  the  doc- 
trine ?  He  says  this  :  ''With  a  population  of  sixty  mil- 
lions this  country  is  sparsely  settled,  and  will  support 
under  good  industrial  condition  two  or  three  hundred 
millions  in  peace  and  plenty."  Why  then  moralize 
about  imprudent  marriages  and  a  redundant  popula- 
tion ?  In  that  one  sentence  he  surrendered  himself 
a  prisoner  to  Mr.  Schilling.  If  the  country  possesses 
the  abundant  natural  advantages  which  Mr.  Gage  de- 
scribes, why  are  a  million  wage-workers  out  of  work  ? 
If  the  country  is  '*  sparsely  settled,"  why  do  men  jostle 
each  other  and  suffocate  each  other  in  the  labor  market  ? 
If  "  the  treasures  of  mineral  wealth  beneath  the  sur- 
face are  inexhaustible,"  why  is  not  their  opulence  de- 
veloped ?     Is  it  not  because  capital  owns  the  key  of 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  197 

the  underground  cellar  and  keeps  it  locked  from  labor? 
Mr.  Gage's  admission  that  the  country  is  sparsely  set- 
tled while  its  natural  resources  are  inexhaustible,  was 
a  strong  support  to  the  claim  of  Mr.  Schilling  that 
labor  shall  be  given  access  to  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
to  the  forests  upon  it,  and  to  the  minerals  below. 

When  Mr.  Gage  advocated  *' co-operation  indus- 
trial and  otherwise "  as  a  social  remedy,  there  was 
loud  applause  in  the  pit  and  in  the  gallery,  as  if  he 
had  just  condescended  to  patronize  one  of  the  absolute 
virtues  such  as  temperance,  honesty,  industry  or  broth- 
erly love.  Perhaps  the  most  plausible  bit  of  sophistry 
in  the  labor  debate  is  the  '^  co-operation  "  excuse  for 
the  mistakes  and  offenses  of  *' organized  capital"  and 
"  organized  labor."  Co-operation  is  not  a  principle,  it 
never  was  anything  but  an  expedient,  a  plan,  some- 
times wise  and  sometimes  not;  sometimes  good  and 
sometimes  bad.  It  may  be  virtuous  or  not,  according 
to  its  purpose  and  its  action.  What  do  you  co-operate 
for?  is  the  test  question  that  must  be  answered  by  the 
Knights  of  Capital  and  by  the  Knights  of  Labor,  and 
upon  the  answer  the  quality  and  value  of  the  co-opera- 
tion must  depend.  The  co-operation  of  the  Knights  of 
Capital  to  develop  coal  mines  and  bring  coal  to  Chi- 
cago is  beneficial,  but  the  co-operation  of  Knights  of 
Capital  to  raise  the  price  of  coal  is  mischievous.  The 
co-operation  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  to  raise  their  own 
wages  is  good  ;  their  co-operation  to  lower  the  wages 
of  other  men  is  bad.  The  co-operation  of  the  Knights 
of  Capital  to  boycott  their  workmen  who  refuse  to 
*^  sign  the  document,"  is  tyrannical  and  unjust ;  the 
co-operation  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  to  boycott  the 
craftsmen  who  decline  to  sign  their  document,  is 
equally  tyrannical.  Co-operation  is  good  only  so  far 
as  its  aims  and  methods  are  generous  and  iust. 


198  WHEELBARR  O  W. 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES. 


American  Chartism  has  a  very  close  resemblance 
to  the  English  article  of  that  name,  so  close  indeed, 
that  listening  to  Mr.  Thomas  J.  Morgan,  who  came 
third  in  the  Economic  Conference  course,  I  thought 
myself  once  more  a  boy  in  London  cheering  the  labor 
gospel  at  the  Chartist  hall  in  John  Street.  Mr.  Mor- 
gan looked  like  a  Chartist,  spoke  like  a  Chartist,  and 
the  spirit  of  Chartism  was  the  magnetic  string  by 
which  he  tied  the  audience  together.  Mr.  Morgan  is 
an  effective  orator  because  he  has  the  sincerity  and 
zeal  of  a  fanatic.  That  is  not  the  worst  of  it ;  he  is  a 
fanatic  with  a  cause  ;  a  fanatic  with  an  argument  writ- 
ten in  tears. 

With  some  cleverness,  Mr.  Morgan  captured  the 
sympathy  of  his  audience  in  advance  of  his  argument. 
He  complained  that  he  was  only  five  feet  two  inches 
high.  The  crowd  laughed  at  this,  not  seeing  the  subtle 
charge  behind  it.  They  saw  it  presently  when  the 
orator  declared  with  much  dramatic  force  that  he  had 
been  cheated  out  of  his  rightful  stature  by  the  rapacity 
of  capital.  As  he  said  that,  I  thought  of  the  cynical 
Gloster  in  the  play  scolding  nature  for  a  like  wrong 
done  to  him  : 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  199 

"  I,  that  am  curtail'd  of  this  fair  proportion, 
Cheated  of  feature  by  disenabling  nature, 
Deformed,  unfinished,  sent  before  my  time, 
Into  this  breathing  world  scarce  half  made  up." 

Mr.  Morgan  could  not  complain  that  he  had  been 
cheated  of  feature,  for  his  face  is  well  enough  ;  and 
what  there  is  of  him  is  in  fair  proportion,  but  he  had 
been  cheated  of  stature,  not  by  disembling  nature, 
but  by  unfair  advantage  taken  of  him  when  a  child, 
prematurely  sentenced  to  hard  labor  in  the  factory, 
where  children's  hearts  are  squeezed  like  grapes  and 
the  product  sold  for  gold.  All  this  was  mournful 
enough,  but  the  sympathetic  pain  of  it  was  felt  only  by 
the  small  men  in  the  audience,  men  like  me,  cheated 
of  our  stature  in  the  same  way.  Not  so,  when  he  com- 
plained of  his  diminutive  social  size^  for  here  he  touched 
a  chord  that  vibrated  in  the  hearts  of  all  the  men 
present,  who,  like  himself,  were  cheated  of  social 
stature  because  they  worked  for  bread.  Referring  to 
the  slighting  way  the  newspapers  always  spoke  of  him, 
he  said:  ''My  social  standing  and  dignity  may  be 
measured  by  the  contemptible  insignificance  of  the 
words  'Tommy  Morgan,'  and  I  am  a  type  of  the  wage 
class." 

Although  that  preamble  was  given  in  a  sneering 
way  as  if  rendering  scorn  for  scorn,  there  was  artful 
pathos  in  it,  because  every  working  man  in  the  house 
was  smarting  under  the  low-caste  brand  stamped  upon 
him  by  society.  Here  tvas  a  man  of  character  and 
ability,  of  earnest  convictions,  and  active  philanthropy, 
whom  the  newspapers  would  not  allow  to  rise  above 
the  littleness  of  a  nickname  because  he  worked  for 
wages,  and  had  the  daring  to  say  things  in  criticism  of 
society.  Notwithstanding  Mr.  Morgan's  manly  claim 
for  courtesy,  it  was  refused  him  by  the  press  ;  and  the 


200  WHEELBARROW. 

next  morning  the  newspapers  deliberately  repeated 
the  insult  of  which  he  had  complained ;  they  jeered  him 
again  as  ''Tommy."  They  saw  a  sensitive  man  whom 
they  could  wound,  and  they  wounded  him.  I  think 
the  newspaper  that  thus  wantonly  violates  the  laws  of 
social  kindness  can  hardly  be  called  a  gentleman.  Ed- 
itors and  writers  from  long  habit  of  criticism  some- 
times forget  the  chivalry  and  charity  which  will  not 
wound  the  feelings  of  other  men ;  a  chivalry  which  in 
ordinary  social  intercourse  they  are  careful  to  display. 
It  is  the  gentle  instinct  refined  and  polished  by  exercise 
that  makes  a  gentleman.  The  possessor  of  it  may  be 
a  peasant  or  he  may  be  a  king.  He  may  be  an  editor 
also,  but  in  that  case  his  nobility  will  be  reflected  in 
his  newspaper.  ''The  hard  rain,"  said  Rory  O'More, 
"the  hard  rain  only  cuts  the  body,  but  the  hard  word 
cuts  the  heart."  I  have  read  that  much  of  the  cruelty 
of  the  French  Revolution  was  vengeance  for  ancient 
scorn. 

Mr.  Morgan's  pathos  became  sarcasm  of  good 
quality  when  he  showed  the  obsequious  deferential 
way  in  which  those  papers  spoke  of  the  banker,  who 
lectured  in  the  same  course  on  the  preceding  Sunday 
night.  This  contrast  marked  with  double  emphasis 
theungenerous  treatment  given  to  Mr.  Morgan.  There 
are  not  ten  rich  men  in  Chicago  outside  the  learned 
professions  who  own  as  much  useful  knowledge  as 
Mr.  Morgan  owns.  There  are  not  five  of  them  who 
can  weave  that  knowledge  into  an  argument  with  such 
ingenuity  and  skill  as  he  can  do  it,  and  there  is  liter- 
ally not  one  of  them  who  can  present  an  argument  in 
such  logical  shape,  and  with  such  oratorical  power  as 
Mr.  Morgan  presented  his  reasons  for  State  socialism. 
Yet,  because  he  is  a  laborer,  he  is  not  allowed  the  or- 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  201 

dinary  civilities  of  life,  nor  any  designation  higher 
than  ''Tommy."  Of  all  the  ills  in  Hamlet's  catalogue, 
**  the  proud  man's  contumely  "  is  the  most  irritating  to 
the  working  man. 

Mr.  Morgan's  theme  was  "  The  labor  question  from 
the  standpoint  of  a  Socialist."  He  built  his  argument 
on  a  platform  of  statistics,  the  arithmetic  of  poverty. 
Sophistry  delights  in  statistics.  They  are  plastic  and 
accommodating  witnesses.  Although  the  proverb  says 
that  ''figures  won't  lie,"  they  seldom  come  into  a 
court  of  investigation  without  being  successfully  im- 
peached. That  squalor  abounds  in  all  great  cities  is 
confessed  by  everybody.  It  is  not  necessary  to  bring 
witnesses  to  prove  it.  Squalor  is  the  sediment  of 
cities.  Its  causes  are  a  thousand,  its  cures  must  be  as 
many.  Speculative  reformers  like  Mr.  Morgan  forget 
this.  They  have  a  patent  medicine,  a  magic  balsam 
which  cures  all  political  and  social  disorders.  Society 
must  be  cured  by  that  or  they  will  not  allow  it  to  be 
cured  at  all.  Like  the  jealous  physician  they  would 
rather  see  the  patient  die,  than  cured  by  any  other 
"school  of  medicine"  than  their  own.  Mr.  Morgan 
sees  misery  produced  by  a  multitude  of  causes,  yet  he 
has  but  one  remedy,  the  vague,  uncertain  hope  and 
promise  called  State  Socialism  ;  wherein  all  individual 
ambition  is  to  cease,  where  no  man  shall  grow  taller 
than  his  fellow,  and  especially  not  more  than  five  feet 
two  inches  high.  Mr.  Morgan  looks  and  speaks  like 
a  man  who  would  stand  by  his  principles  with  con- 
sistent heroism.  '  Like  Sam  Weller's  acquaintance, 
who  shot  himself  to  prove  that  muffins  were  whole- 
some, Mr.  Morgan  would  rather  carry  a  donkey's  load 
forever  than  be  relieved  of  his  burthen  by  any  other 
methods  than  his  own. 


202  WHEELBARR  O  W, 

Men  and  women  who  reform  the  world  by  whole- 
sale, and  who  scorn  to  help  their  fellow  creatures  by 
any  retail  system,  charge  all  human  ills  upon  society, 
and  relieve  mankind  from  individual  guilt.  Thus  Mr. 
Morgan  transfers  the  vice  of  drunkenness  from  the 
men  who  practice  it  to  their  form  of  government. 
Strong  drink,  our  most  efficient  poverty-maker,  was 
presented  to  us  rather  as  a  friend  of  the  working  man 
than  an  enemy  ;  a  useful  tonic  and  restorative.  Mr. 
Morgan  shifted  intemperance  from  its  old  position,  and 
made  it  the  effect,  not  the  cause  of  poverty.  This  un- 
lucky transposition  will  have  an  evil  influence  over  the 
men  who  follow  his  lead,  and  they  constitute  a  large 
element  of  the  laboring  population  of  Chicago.  We 
are  grateful  to  the  man  who  unloads  our  private  faults 
upon  the  public,  but  a  better  friend  is  he  who  tells  us 
to  reform  ourselves  now  without  waiting  for  changes 
in  the  law.  Self-discipline  is  premature,  says  the  flat- 
terer ;  wait  until  the  State  is  reformed.  Then  will  be 
the  time  to  curb  your  appetites.  For  the  present, 
comfort  your  hearts  with  wine. 

After  flattering  strong  drink  as  a  tonic  whose  office 
it  is  to  raise  the  heart  of  the  exhausted  worker,  Mr. 
Morgan  said:  ^^Give  the  laborer  a  chance  to  get  a 
better  home  than  a  couple  of  rooms.  Give  men  a  rea- 
son for  living  and  they  will  not  need  intoxicants." 
The  applause  here  had  a  mendicant  flavor  about  it 
which  was  depressing  and  very  sad.  The  man  who 
comforts  himself  with  '*  intoxicants  "  while  waiting  for 
**  government  "  or  some  other  benevolent  fairy  to  give 
him  three  rooms  instead  of  two,  will  not  have  two 
rooms  very  long.  Whose  duty  is  it  to  give  a  man 
reasons  for  living  ?  Men  must  make  their  own  reasons 
for  living,  and  they  must  not   be  expected  to  share 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.     .        203 

them  with  the  rusty  delinquents  who  think  that  good 
enough  reasons  for  living  may  be  found  in  beer.  Indi- 
vidual ambition,  and  an  active  personal  conscience  are 
the  levers  by  which  the  working  men  must  lift  them- 
selves. Self-reform  is  the  true  tonic  of  exhausted 
labor.  The  man  who  would  elevate  society  must  raise 
his  own  part  of  it,  which  is  himself.  A  maudlin  trust 
in  *' government  "  will  accomplish  nothing.  "Who 
would  be  free  themselves,  must  strike  the  *blow. '" 
Above  all  things  the  working  men  need  freedom  from 
the  flatterers  who  tell  them  that  their  vices  are  not 
their  own. 

In  like  manner  Mr.  Morgan  transferred  the  sin  of 
laziness  from  the  idler  to  his  external  conditions.  For 
this  he  gave  some  reasons  which  society  may  well 
examine.  He  said  that  idleness  existed  among  the 
poorer  classes  because  "they  were  born  tired."  This 
bolt  struck  its  mark  with  the  force  of  a  cannon  shot. 
A  comprehensive  indictment  against  the  existing  order 
of  things  was  condensed  into  a  single  sentence.  I 
have  often  heard  it  said  of  lazy  men  in  jest  that  they 
were  born  tired,  but  Mr.  Morgan  uttered  it  seriously 
as  a  physiological  truth.  He  said  the  habitual  ex- 
haustion of  laboring  men  and  women  was  transmitted 
to  their  children,  and  that  millions  of  children  were 
tired  at  the  very  moment  when  they  came  into  the 
world.  They  inherited  laziness.  This  is  a  terrible 
charge  against  our  present  social  organism,  and  I  fear 
that  Mr.  Morgan  can  bring  much  evidence  to  sustain 
it.  In  Lord  Byron's  drama,  "  The  Deformed  Trans- 
formed," Bertha  says  to  Arnold,  her  deformed  son  : 
"  Out  hunchback  !  "  and  Arnold  answers,  "  I  was  born 
so,  Mother  !  "  In  this  answer  he  flings  the  reproach  for 
his  deformity  back  upon  his  parents,  where  indeed  it 


204         .  WHEELBARROW. 

properly  belonged.  So,  Mr.  Morgan,  confessing  the 
vices  of  his  order,  confronts  an  accusing  world,  and 
retorts  with  bitterness,  '*We  were  born  so,  Mother  !  " 
If  he  is  correct,  then  is  our  penal  code  nothing  but  an 
expression  of  legislative  ignorance.  Whether  he  is 
correct  or  not,  his  plea  of  hereditary  defect  is  entitled 
to  grave  consideration.  It  warns  us  that  a  little  be- 
nevolent perfumery  sprinkled  on  the  decaying  spots  of 
our  social  system  will  not  disinfect  the  slums,  that  we 
must  go  down  below  the  surface  of  our  industrial  con- 
ditions and  wrestle  with  evil  in  the  place  of  its  origin. 
Men  in  cloth,  and  women  in  silk,  wholesale  dealers  in 
reform,  moralizing  against  the  wind,  must  work  more 
and  talk  less.  However  small  the  cause  of  one  man's 
poverty,  or  of  ten  men's  poverty  may  be,  it  is  not  be- 
neath the  dignity  of  any  man  who  truly  desires  justice 
to  remove  it  if  he  can. 

Mr.  Morgan  showed  that  in  the  labor-market  there 
are  more  sellers  than  buyers  of  human  muscle  and 
brawn  \  therefore  strikes  fail,  because  there  are  always 
unemployed  men  enough  to  fill  the  vacuum  created  by 
a  strike.  Here  he  threw  in  a  word  of  pity  and  apol- 
ogy for  the  '*  scab."  He  overdid  it,  and  showed  that 
his  own  order  needed  most  the  pity  and  the  apol- 
ogy. He  said,  ''These  alleged  idlers  are  the  men 
termed  'scabs.'  They  risk  losing  their  lives  in  the 
event  of  securing  a  job — prefer  the  abhorrence  and  de- 
testation of  their  fellows  rather  than  be  without  em- 
ployment." Rather  than  be  without  liberty  is  the  cor- 
rect statement.  It  is  not  the  fear  of  poverty  but  the 
love  of  liberty  that  gives  that  courage  to  the  "  scab." 
The  so-called  scabs  are  the  nobility  of  labor,  the  hope 
of  industrial  emancipation.  They  have  been  the  mar- 
tyrs of  independence  in  all   ages.     They  are  the  up- 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  205 

right  brave  who  run  the  risk  of  death,  the  abhorrence 
and  detestation  of  their  fellows,  rather  than  surrender 
their  manhood  into  the  keeping  of  other  men.  Those 
who  threaten  scabs  with  death,  who  load  them  with 
detestation  and  abhorrence,  should  beware  how  they 
fling  contemptuous  names  which  may  rebound  upon 
themselves.  The  *'scab"  is  a  free  laborer;  the  man 
who  can  be  *' ordered  out"  or  *' ordered  in"  by  a 
*' chief,"  a  '*  grand  master,"  or  a  '*  walking  delegate," 
is  not.  I  do  not  speak  in  reproach,  but  in  sympathy 
for  men  driven  by  despair  to  bad  methods  of  defence. 
I  have  heard  that  it  is  written  in  the  law  that  if  two 
shipwrecked  men  are  clinging  to  a  plank  which  will 
only  support  one  man,  either  of  them  may  drown  the 
other,  and  the  act  is  not  murder ;  but  I  do  not  believe 
the  working  men  of  America  are  in  any  such  extremity. 
Necessity  is  the  plea  offered  for  intolerance.  *' Or- 
ganized labor  "  says  :  We  have  placed  our  freedom  in 
the  hands  of  trustees,  who  promise -to  prop  up  wages 
for  us  by  the  persecution  of  all  other  men  if  necessary. 
It  is  easy  to  preach  on  this  and  show  the  folly  of  it. 
It  is  easy  to  censure  the  cruelty  of  it,  but  men  who 
live  in  haunted  houses  where  the  ghost  of  hunger  sits 
forever  on  the  hearthstone,  are  very  apt  to  be  feeble  in 
philosophy  and  confused  about  moral  distinctions. 
Holding  work  by  a  precarious  tenure,  liable  to  be  idle 
any  day,  limited  to  a  small  ration  of  nature's  raw  ma- 
terials out  of  which  to  make  his  living,  with  new  in- 
ventions daily  cheapening  skill,  it  is  natural  that  the 
mechanic,  frightened  by  the  combined  adversities  that 
threaten  him,  clutches  at  any  means  of  safety,  and 
shoves  his  neighbor  off  the  plank.  In  Mr.  Morgan's 
own  words,  ''The  worker,  realizing  by  experience  the 
futility  of  individual  resistance  seeks  in  trades-union- 


2o6  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

ism  the  means  of  protection."  To  which  I  answer, 
*''Tis  true,  'tis  true,  'tis  pity  ;  and  pity  it  is  'tis  true." 
For  all  this,  the  laborer  must  learn  that  he  will  never 
win  his  own  rights  by  doing  wrong  to  others.  He 
must  learn  that  the  laws  of  justice  are  binding  upon 
him  as  upon  all  other  men.  Passionate  critics,  like 
Mr.  Morgan,  feeling  keenly  the  rich  man's  advantage, 
make  no  allowance  for  the  millionaire,  who  may  be 
the  victim  of  his  *' environment "  as  helpless  as  the 
laborer  in  his.  They  do  not  see  that  magnanimity  may 
travel  upward  as  well  as  downward,  and  that  it  is 
equally  due  from  the  poor  to  the  rich  as  from  the  rich 
to  the  poor.  It  sounds  odd,  but  few  of  us  know  how 
much  the  rich  need  charity. 

Mr.  Morgan  pretends  that  the  laborer's  margin  of 
comfort  is  so  small  that  he  has  no  room  for  self-denial, 
and  that  the  luxuries  he  is  called  upon  to  deny  him- 
self have  already  been  denied  him.  He  refuted  this 
last  Sunday,  when  he  led  the  working  men  of  the 
Trade  and  Labor  assembly  to  resolve  against  drinking 
beer  for  thirty  days,  as  a  punishment  to  the  master 
brewers  who  were  employing  non-union  men.  This 
bit  of  self-denial  Mr.  Morgan  approves  as  discipline 
for  the  master  brewers,  but  is  not  the  self-discipline 
of  it  a  victory  more  sublime.  Trade-union  states- 
manship never  devised  a  plan  for  raising  wages  so 
effectual  as  that.  By  it,  every  man  in  the  scheme  raises 
his  own  wages,  or  saves  a  wasted  portion  of  it  which 
amounts  to  the  same  thing.  On  Monday,  Mr.  Morgan 
said,  "I  drink  but  one  glass  of  beer  a  day,  and  I  quit 
that  last  night."  This  was  a  wise  resolution  unless 
Mr.  Morgan  intended  to  increase  his  daily  allowance, 
because  if  the  tired  working  man  needs  beer  to  tone 
him  up  and  keep  him  going,  one  glass  of  it  per  day  is 


ECONOMIC  CONFERENCES.  207 

not  enough,  and  if  he  does  not  need  it,  one  glass  is 
evidently  too  much.  Mr.  Morgan  raises  his  own  wages 
five  cents  a  day.  Not  much  indeed,  but  it  amounts  to 
a  suit  of  clothes  a  year,  which  to  a  working  man  is 
considerable  in  this  climate. 

According  to  Mr.  Morgan  there  are  four  acts  in 
the  evolution  drama,  barbarism,  feudalism,  individual- 
ism and  socialism.  We  are  now  near  the  end  of  the 
third  act,  and  individualism  has  possession  of  the  stage. 
The  arrangement  is  purely  fanciful,  and  if  the  order 
were  inverted  it  would  be  just  as  true.  Is  not  State 
Socialism  a  quality  of  barbarism  ?  I  don't  mean  a  bad 
quality,  for  many  philosophers  of  high  rank  look  upon 
State  Socialism  as  a  redeeming  virtue  in  the  political 
system  of  the  Indians.  Is  it  not  error  to  think  that 
individualism  prevails  even  in  the  United  States  ? 
Here  every  citizen  has  a  legislature  in  almost  contin- 
ual session  embracing  him,  petting,  patronizing  and 
protecting  him.  Sometimes  two  legislatures  are  affec- 
tionately squeezing  him  at  the  same  time,  and  like  a 
brace  of  benevolent  garroters,  literally  *' holding  him 
up."  Is  it  not  the  dream  of  every  citizen  that  congress 
has  the  power  to  make  prosperity  ?  And  many  actu- 
ally believe  that  Congress  can  make  money.  It  is  the 
chronic  state  of  every  man  in  this  country  that  he 
'^  wants  to  have  a  law  passed."  What  sort  of  indi- 
vidualism is  that  ? 

Mr.  Morgan  appears  to  be  jealous  of  specific  re- 
forms. He  prefers  to  see  injustice  breed  injustice, 
and  wrongs  multiply.  He  thinks  that  after  a  fruitless 
march  of  calamity,  the  people  in  despair  will  turn  to 
State  Socialism  for  prayer  and  rest.  The  prospect  for 
labor  is  not  bright  when  leaders  like  Mr.  Morgan 
"  hail  with  delight  the  organization  of  every  corpora- 


2o8  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

tion,  pool  or  trust  that  monopolizes  production,  com- 
munication, distribution,  transportation  or  exchange." 
There  is  an  unfortunate  cabman  in  the  lunatic  asylum, 
who,  although  sane  on  other  subjects,  thinks  that  the 
nearest  and  best  way  to  anywhere  is  across  the  great 
desert  of  Arabia.  In  his  efforts  to  go  by  that  route 
he  caused  his  passengers  much  inconvenience.  Mr. 
Morgan  desires  to  conduct  the  working  men  to  a  bet- 
ter social  state,  but  he  insists  on  taking  them  there  by 
way  of  the  Arabian  desert. 


THE  ETHICS  OF  THE  BOAED  OF  TKADE. 


A    CONTROVERSY    WITH    LYMAN    J.     GAGE. 


211 


MAKING  BREAD  DEAR. 


BY    WHEELBARROW. 


A  FEW  days  ago  a  friend  lent  me  a  copy  of  The 
North  American  Review,  in  order  that  I  might  read 
an  article  by  Mr.  Henry  D.  Lloyd,  on  "  Making  Bread 
Dear."  In  that  article  Mr.  Lloyd  shows  me  the  intri- 
cate wheels,  cogs,  and  pulleys  of  that  ingenious  ma- 
chine by  which  a  conspiracy  of  the  "rich  criminal 
classes  "  can  increase  the  price  of  bread.  As  my  mus- 
cle and  bone  have  always  been  cheap,  it  is  of  critical 
importance  to  me  that  bread  should  be  cheap  also.  As 
I  have  usually  sold  myself  in  the  market  for  a  dollar  a 
day,  and  from  that  to  a  dollar  and  a  half,  it  has  been 
an  essential  condition  of  existence  to  me  that  the  land 
around  me  should  be  fertile,  the  rain  upon  it  copious, 
and  the  sunshine  strong.  I  have  prayed  against  the 
late  frosts  in  the  spring,  and  early  frosts  in  the  fall,  so 
that  the  crops  might  be  abundant,  and  provisions 
cheap.  My  prayers  have  generally  been  answered  as 
to  the  crops,  but  flour  has  not  been  cheap,  and  for 
years  I  have  been  dodging  the  price  of  bread.  Some- 
times I  would  sneak  behind  potatoes,  but  they  were 
perishable,  and  grew  dear  in  the  winter  time;  then  I 
hid  among  corn,  and  a  good  retreat  it  was,  but  the 
children  asked  for  sure  enough  bread — the  Johnny 
cake  was  dry.     In  the  winter  time  white  beans  have 


2 1 2  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

been  my  generous  friends,  and  often  they  have  helped 
me  to  evade  the  price  of  bread.  All  through  the  sum- 
mer time,  Nature,  the  bounteous  mother,  covers  our 
share  of  the  earth  with  a  carpet  of  grain  resplendent 
in  green  and  gold,  while  bands  of  criminals  are  per- 
mitted by  the  laws  to  discount  it  and  corner  it,  to  be- 
witch it  and  bedevil  it,  that  it  may  become  costly 
and  scarce  to  the  workingman.  The  guilty  profit  goes 
to  them,  and  with  it  they  corrupt  our  laws  in  the  very 
capitol  where  they  are  made. 

While  one  gang  of  food  gamblers  raises  the  price 
of  bread,  another  gang  raises  the  price  of  meat,  but 
this  concerns  me  little,  for  little  of  it  I  get.  Another 
gang  raises  the  price  of  coal,  another  the  price  of  oil, 
and  another  the  price  of  matches  with  which  I  light 
my  pipe.  I  am  in  the  toils  of  monopolies  that  shave 
my  wages  down  to  ''what  the  traffic  will  bear."  I  use 
the  slang  of  capital,  which  in  my  case  means  the  low- 
est point  that  flesh  and  blood  can  bear,  and  have 
strength  enough  left  to  shovel.  When  the  wages 
comes  the  monopolies  lay  tax  and  tribute  on  it,  and 
scale  a  bit  of  unjust  profit  from  whatever  I  have  to 
buy.  I  am  helpless.  I  cannot  get  even  with  any  one.  As 
I  am  the  very  mudsill  of  society,  there  is  nobody  below 
me  that  I  can  oppress  in  revenge.  I  cannot  retaliate 
on  anybody.  If  I  try  to  skrimp  the  dirt,  and  wheel 
up  a  light  load,  the  boss  on  the  bank  detects  the  short 
measure,  and  yells,  "Fill  up  the  'barrow."  Bread- 
earners  by  hard  labor  of  every  degree.  We  are  the 
Hebrew  Hercules,  shorn,  and  in  the  hands  of  the  Phi- 
listines; we  make  rare  sport  for  their  holiday,  but  the 
revelry  of  monopoly  cannot  last  forever;  the  hair  of 
Samson  will  grow  again. 

I  am  told  that  high  prices   indicate  social  prosper- 


MAKING  BREAD  DEAR.  213 

ity,  and  that  they  are  necessary  in  order  to  make  high 
wages  for  me.  I  doubt  that;  I  think  it  is  untrue.  For 
many  years  my  wages  has  remained  in  figures  much 
about  the  same,  although  its  power  in  the  market  has 
varied  a  great  deal.  Sometimes  it  would  buy  a  good 
many  comforts,  and  at  other  times  very  few,  although 
nominally  it  was  about  the  same  sum.  Since  I  first 
worked  with  the  wheelbarrow  the  population  of  the 
country  has  doubled,  while  the  wealth  of  it  has 
multiplied  fourfold  and  more.  Of  that  multiplied 
wealth  I  get  no  share  at  all.  I  know  of  it  only 
from  reading.  I  never  felt  its  growth  in  the  swell- 
ing of  my  wages.  The  increased  cost  of  life  I  know 
by  hard  experience,  but  no  proportionate  recom- 
pense in  higher  wages  has  ever  come  to  me.  Rela- 
tively, indeed,  I  am  sure  my  wages  is  less  than  it 
was,  because  the  higher  prices  make  it  harder  for  me 
to  live.  Through  the  increased  power  of  machinery 
an  hour's  human  labor  now  produces  twice  or  thrice 
as  much  as  it  did  some  thirty  years  ago,  but  I  get  no 
benefit  from  that;  my  hours  of  labor  remain  the  same. 
I  shall  never  again  believe  that  high  prices  for  every- 
thing is  a  good  thing  for  me. 

When  I  first  went  to  railroading,  my  wages  was  a 
dollar  a  day;  it  is  now  from  a  dollar  and  a  quarter  to 
a  dollar  and  a  half.  To  say  nothing  of  the  increased 
wealth  of  the  country,  and  the  multiplied  facilities  for 
producing  all  the  comforts  of  life,  this  raise  of  wages 
does  not  even  correspond  with  the  higher  prices  o£ 
food,  fuel,  rent,  and  clothes,  to  say  nothing  of  a  hun- 
dred other  things.  You  may  prove  to  me  by  what  you 
call  political  economy,  that  I  am  wrong  in  this  opin- 
ion, but  I  can  prove  to  you  by  my  household  econo- 
my that   I  have  had  no  meat  for  dinner  to-dav.  and  in 


214  WHEELBARROW. 

that  I  know  that  I  am  right.  I  have  not  capacity  suf- 
ficient to  learn  the  abstract  principles  of  social  science, 
and  if  I  even  had  the  genius,  I  am  too  tired  to  exer- 
cise it  now.  I  learn  by  object  lessons,  like  a  child, 
and  I  know  that  the  home  of  every  laborer  in  Chicago 
is  an  object  lesson,  from  which  even  our  statesmen  yet 
may  learn  that  progress  sometimes  travels  hand  in 
hand  with  poverty.  As  I  lay  my  touch  upon  the  Titan 
wrist  of  labor,  I  feel  in  its  pulsations,  the  resolution 
that  they  must  be  divorced,  that  the  makers  of  pro- 
gress shall  enjoy  a  larger  share  of  its  beneficence,  that 
the  men  who  flinch  not  from  the  penalty  "in  the  sweat 
of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,"  must  have  the  ra- 
tion that  their  sweat  has  earned,  and  that  not  much 
longer  will  they  be  cheated  out  of  the  bread,  after 
they  have  paid  for  it  the  full  price  demanded  by  the 
great  Creator's  law.  As  making  bread  dear  is  morally 
a  crime,  let  us  make  it  a  crime  by  law;  let  us  build  new 
penitentiaries  to  accomodate  those  vermin  of  trade 
who  make  dear  the  food  of  the  poor.  They  are  the 
lineal  descendants  of  the  sordid  Egyptian  speculators 
who  tried  to  corner  all  the  corn  in  Egypt,  because 
there  was  a  famine  in  the  land  of  Canaan. 

It  is  an  impious  thing  to  arrest  the  bounty  of  the 
Creator  on  its  way  to  the  poor  man's  home.  Men  com- 
bine to  reverse  the  commandment  "Feed  the  hungry," 
they  contrive  by  strategy  to  prevent  the  hungry  from 
being  fed.  "We  must  make  the  five  cent  loaf  a  little 
smaller,"  said  the  bakers  of  Chicago  a  month  or  two 
ago,  when  a  rich  forestaller  had  successfully  performed 
an  operation  on  the  "  Board."  "  Or  else  we  must  reduce 
the  weight  of  the  pound  loaf  to  fifteen  ounces."  Either 
way,  it  means  a  smaller  ration  for  me.  In  defiance  of 
this  visible  fact,  I   am  assured  by  impossible  algebra 


MAKING  BREAD  DEAR.  215 

and  much  double  rule  of  three,  that  I  am  getting 
richer  every  year  by  higher  wages,  and  fatter  by 
cheaper  food.  Statesmen  of  terrapin  brain  tell  me  that 
I  cannot  possibly  be  hungry,  because  the  statistics 
prove  the  increasing  fatness  of  the  land.  I  once  took 
"a  seat  in  the  gallery  of  the  United  States  Senate  in 
order  to  hear  the  debate.  In  the  arena  below  me  was 
a  club  of  millionaires.  To  my  surprise  I  saw  that  they 
had  lost  the  power  of  natural  speech.  They  could  not 
talk;  they  chinked,  like  dollars  rustled  in  a  bag.  In 
metallic  monotone  they  tolled  me  that  of  the  joint 
product  of  labor  and  capital  the  share  of  labor  was  ab- 
solutely and  relatively  increasing,  while  the  share  of 
capital  was  relatively  decreasing.  When  I  ask  for  my 
dividends  I  am  told  that  I  can  get  them  from  the  sta- 
tistics. Meanwhile  I  hear  the  drone  of  the  everlasting 
driving-wheel  furnishing  power  to  innumerable  eccen- 
trics whose  province  it  is  to  make  bread  dear,  and  la- 
borers cheap. 


2 1 6  WHEELBARR  O  JV. 

V 


CORNERS  AND  THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE. 

A  CRITICISM  OF  WHEELBARROW's  ESSAY,     "  MAKING  BREAD  DEAR,"  BY 
A   SYMPATHIZER    (LYMAN    J.    GAGE). 


In  Number  78  of  your  paper,  I  read  an  article 
signed  "Wheelbarrow."  Too  easily  affected  perhaps 
by  the  unfortunate  condition  of  my  fellow-men,  I  was 
greatly  moved  by  the  description  given  by  Wheelbar- 
row of  the  hard  lines  in  which  his  life  is  set.  To  be 
forever  pushing  a  wheelbarrow  at  the  meagre  remuner- 
ation of  $1.25  per  day,  with  a  hard  taskmaster  stand- 
ing near  (at  much  higher  wages  per  diem),  forever 
crying,  "  Fill  up  the  barrow,"  is  indeed  an  unhappy 
lot.  But  this  is  only  part  of  the  picture  he  drew. 
While  he  secures  for  his  toil  only  the  small  wages  at- 
taching to  this  most  common  kind  of  human  labor, 
there  is,  according  to  him,  a  wicked  design  on  the  part 
of  those  superior  to  him  in  position,  to  render  his  pit- 
tance the  most  inadequate  for  his  numerous  wants, 
by  artificially  raising  the  prices  of  those  things  which 
his  necessity  demands. 

My  heart  burned  with  indignation  as  I  read  his 
eloquent,  if  somewhat  ambiguous,  indictment  of  so- 
ciety ;  for  he  is  truly  eloquent,  and  when  I  read  his 
glowing  words,  I  wondered  why  he  did  not  turn  his 
attention  to  the  Bar,  the  Pulpit,  or  the  Press,  because 
in  either  of  these  his  mental  gifts  give  promise  of  suc- 
cess ;  and  by  his  own  confession,  pushing  a  wheel- 
barrow is  hard,  monotonous,  and   unprofitable  work. 


CORNERS  AND  THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE.    217 

But  this  reflection  made  the  contrast  between  what  he 
might  have  been,  and  what  he  is,  the  more  painful, 
and  served  only  to  aggravate  the  wickedness  of  those 
who  try  to  oppress  him.  With  these  thoughts  in  mind 
I  read  again  his  pungent  article.  On  the  second  read- 
ing, doubts  arose  in  my  mind.  I  asked  myself  the 
question,  *'  Is  this  the  statement  of  real  fact,  or  is  it  a 
sketch  in  which  a  fervid  imagination  has  outrun  sober 
fact  and  reasonable  judgment?"  This  I  determined 
to  ascertain  if  possible.  I  took  the  following  extracts 
as  fairly  representative  of  his  chief  grievances,  and 
said  :  "  If  I  find  this  true,  I  will  take  his  statement  for 
the  other  specifications." 

"All  through  the  summer  time,  Nature,  the  boun- 
"teous  mother,  covers  our  share  of  the  earth  with  a 
•'  carpet  of  grain,  resplendent  in  green  and  gold,  while 
"  bands  of  criminals  are  permitted  by  the  law  to  discount 
"  //  and  corner  it,  to  bewitch  it,  and  bedevil  it,  that  it 
"  may  become  costly  and  scarce  to  the  workingman.  The 
"  guilty  profit  goes  to  them,  and  with  it  they  corrupt 
"  our  laws  in  the  very  capitol  where  they  are  made. 

"  While  one  gang  of  food  gamblers  raises  the  price 
''  of  bread,  another  gang  raises  the  price  of  meat.  *  *  * 
"  As  making  bread  dear  is  morally  a  crime,  let  us 
"make  it  a  crime  by  law;  let  us  build  new  peniten- 
''tiaries  to  accommodate  those  vermin  of  trade  who 
"  make  dear  the  food  of  the  poor.  They  are  the  lineal 
"descendants  of  the  sordid  Egyptian  speculators  who 
"  tried  to  corner  all  the  corn  in  Egypt,  because  there 
"was  a  famine  in  the  land  of  Canaan." 

Determined  to  be  thorough  in  my  examination  of 
the  matter,  I  called  upon  a  farmer  friend,  showed  him 
the  article,  and  asked  if  the  farmers  were  engaged  in 
the  wicked  combination.     He  replied  :  "  I  know  of  no 


2 1 8  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

combination  to  make  wheat  or  flour  high.  I  do  know 
that  the  price  is  very  low — so  low  as  to  afford  the  far- 
mer but  little  remuneration  for  his  toil.  Statistics 
prove  that  the  average  pay  to  the  farmer  is  about  82 
cents  per  day,  or  about  two-thirds  of  what  Wheelbar- 
row earns,  and  the  truth  is  that  many  from  the  coun- 
try are  moving  into  the  city  to  secure,  if  possible,  a 
more  remunerative  job,  such  as  Wheelbarrow  enjoys." 
I  then  called  upon  a  miller  who  I  knov^  is  honest.  He 
said  :  "  There  is  no  combination  among  millers.  On 
the  contrary,  competition  is  very  fierce.  If  we  get  25 
cents  per  barrel  for  the  use  of  our  mill,  and  the  risk 
we  take,  we  are  satisfied.  In  fact  we  do  not  average 
so  much." 

I  had  anticipated  about  this  form  of  reply  from 
facts  already  within  my  knowledge,  and  therefore  was 
not  much  disappointed  that  in  these  two  places — the 
farm  and  the  mill — Wheelbarrow's  trouble  did  not 
originate. 

I  then  went  to  the  Board  of  Trade.  I  visited  a 
man,  not  an  operator  himself,  but  well  acquainted 
with  all  the  course  of  trade  and  speculation  in  the  form 
of  cereal  and  other  product  dealt  in  in  this  market. 

He  read  the  accusation  of  Wheelbarrow  and  said : 

"  This  kind  of  loose  talk  is  hard  to  answer.  It  has 
no  real  foundation  in  fact.  The  only  reply  possible, 
is  to  set  forth  the  real  facts ;  and  that  requires  a  great 
many  more  words  than  it  is  necessary  to  use  in  accusing 
a  man  of  murder,  conspiracy,  or  other  crime.  No  one 
wants  to  make  bread  dear  ;  no  one  wants  to  make  it 
cheap.  The  speculator  operates  to  make  money.  He 
buys  hoping  for  a  rise,  or  he  sells  for  future  delivery 
hoping  for  a  decline.  There  can  be  no  buyer  without 
a  seller,  and  no  seller  without  a  buyer.     If   the  short 


CORI^EIiS  AND  THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE.   219 

seller  was  too  numerous,  grain  would  go  down,  and 
bread  would  be  cheap  ;  but  the  agriculturalist  would 
suffer,  and  if  this  influence  continued  long  enough,  he 
would  cease  to  raise  wheat,  when  a  reaction  would 
ensue,  wheat  would  be  scarce  and  high,  and  bread 
would  become  dear. 

"  Against  this  influence,  the  speculative  buyer 
offers  the  only  barrier.  He  is  handicapped  at  the  be- 
ginning by  charges  and  expenses  from  which  the  short 
seller  is  free,  /".  e.,  if  he  buys  and  carries  wheat  or 
other  property,  he  is  subjected  to  the  cost  of  storaj^e, 
interest,  insurance,  and  the  risk  of  deterioration  in 
quality.  Both  the  buyer  and  the  seller  are  governed 
by  their  conclusions,  reached  from  the  best  examina- 
tion they  can  make  of  the  present  and  prospective 
quantity-of  grain,  as  compared  with  the  present  and 
prospective  demand  for  it,  whether  for  home  consump- 
tion or  foreign  exportation. 

"  One  immediate  effect  of  the  operations  described 
is  to  make  a  continuous  cash  market  for  all  products 
so  dealt  in,  and  the  two  forces,  it  may  be  safely  as- 
serted, operate  to  bring  the  average  price  of  wheat  to 
a  fair  equilibrium  under  the  law  of  supply  and  demand. 
At  least  it  is  true  that  in  an  open  market  such  as 
usually  exists,  the  current  price  is  an  expression  of  the 
agreed  opinion  of  the  world  as  to  the  fair  value  of  the 
article.  I  say  world,  because  the  world  trades  in  our 
market.  If  the  price  is  for  a  moment  higher  than  any 
individual  trader's  opinion  of  the  real  price  he  will 
offer  for  sale,  and  thus  affect  the  price  downward.  If 
he  thinks  it  too  low,  he  will  buy  in  the  market,  and 
thus  influence  the  market  upward.  The  opinions  thus 
backed  by  monied  risk,  are  much   superior   to  the  ex 


220  WHEELBARROW. 

parte  notion  of  Wheelbarrow,  or  any  other  person  who 
merely  stands  off  and  looks  on. 

"  I  might  go  on  and  speak  about  <■  corners '  so- 
called,"  my  informant  continued,  "but  perhaps  I  have 
said  enough." 

No,  I  rephed,  it  is  about  corners  that  I  especially 
want  to  hear,  for  I  suspect  that  there,  if  anywhere, 
will  be  found  the  true  occasion  for  Wheelbarrow's 
severe  strictures. 

"Well,"  he  said,  "  I  will  tell  you  all  I  know  about 
them.  I  have  already  spoken  about  an  open  market, 
meaning  by  that  a  market  which  is  under  no  individual's 
or  syndicate's  controh  Now,  it  occasionally  happens, 
at  infrequent  intervals,  that  some  one  man,  or  a  small 
group  acting  together,  will  take  advantage  of  a  mo- 
ment when  the  actual  stock  of  wheat  or  provisions  in 
store  is  small,  and  secretly  buy  it  all.  With  the 
actual  property  thus  in  possession,  they  will  make 
contracts  of  purchase  with  the  unsuspecting  seller  for 
future  delivery.  When  the  contract  is  due,  the  seller 
must  buy  in  what  he  had  previously  sold,  but  as  the 
stock  is  already  in  his  adversary's  hands,  he  can  buy 
only  of  him,  and  at  his  price.  The  short  seller  is  thus 
occasionally  caught  and  put  in  chancery  by  the  wily, 
and  perhaps  unscrupulous,  dealer,  who  has  thus  cor- 
nered the  market. 

"  But  in  the  nature  of  things,  such  a  condition 
must  be  of  short  duration.  The  operator  who  has 
cornered  the  market  must  buy  all  that  comes.  The 
advancing  price,  which  is  its  inseparable  feature,  brings 
into  the  market  the  reserve  from  all  points,  and  under 
the  rapidly  increasing  load,  the  cornerer  usually  finds 
himself  unable  to  continue    to   buy,   and    is    at   last 


CORNERS  AND  THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE.   221 

obliged  to  let  go  of  his  holdings,  suffers  enormous 
losses,  and  frequently  involves  himself  in  ruin. 

"  Some  years  ago,  Jim  Keene,  of  New  York,  tried 
the  game.  He  lost  two  millions  of  dollars  or  more. 
Afterward  McGeoch  tried  it.  His  losses  amounted  to 
millions,  and  he  retired  a  ruined  man.  Ten  years  ago, 
a  Cincinnati  clique  tried  it.  They  lost  enormously,  and 
some  of  those  interested  are  now  in  the  penitentiary, 
where  Wheelbarrow  says  they  belong.  But  those  are 
episodes.  They  are  like  raid.s  in  the  rear  of  an  army, 
or  piratical  excursions  over  ordinary  peaceful  seas. 
Their  influence  is  so  brief  they  seldom  affect  the  price 
of  the  product  to  the  actual  consumer. 

"As  an  illustration  ;  in  a  celebrated  pork  corner 
some  three  years  ago,  the  price  for  regular  delivery  on 
change  rose  to  $35  per  barrel,  but  the  consumer  could 
buy  for  use  or  shipment  to  other  parts  of  the  country 
for  $14  per  barrel  in  any  quantity  he  desired.  This  is 
a  brief,  but  substantial  statement  of  the  fact.  They 
cannot  be  said  to  make  bread  dear  as  Wheelbarrow 
alleges,  for  in  a  swing  of  months  or  years,  their  influ> 
ence  is  next  to  nil  in  that  direction." 

Having  thus  exhausted  the  chief  specification  of 
Wheelbarrow,  I  did  not  pursue  the  question  into  other 
fields.  My  own  mind  was  greatly  reheved,  and  I  have 
thought  others  among  your  sympathizing  readers 
might  be  similarly  affected  by  this  perusal. 

Part  of  Wheelbarrow's  unhappiness  arises  from  the 
alleged  fact  that  since  '- 1  first  worked  with  the  wheel- 
barrow *  *  *  wealth  has  multiplied  fourfold  or  more. 
Of  that  multiplied  wealth  I  get  no  share  at  all."  Now, 
he  might  be  asked  in  what  way  he  has  contributed  to 
increase  wealth  fourfold.  As  a  wheeler  of  earth,  has 
his  power  increased  fourfold,   or  even   doubled,  over 


2  2  2  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

his  predecessor  in  the  same  line  a  thousand  years  ago? 
He  can  walk  no  faster,  he  is  no  stronger,  and  he  works 
fewer  hours  than  his  brother  laborer  of  a  century  ago. 
By  what  right  then  can  he  demand  that  he  share  in 
an  increase  which  he  did  not  contribute  to  produce? 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  he  has  shared  in  the 
larger  productivity  which  society  as  a  whole  has 
brought  about.  When  he  went  to  railroading,  "  my 
wages  was  a  dollar  a  day;  it  is  now  from  a  dollar  and 
a  quarter  to  a  dollar  and  a  half."  This  itself  is  a  gain 
of  from  25  to  50  per  cent.,  and  if  he  will  take  note  of 
the  table  of  prices  for  the  things  which  he  consumes, 
he  will  find  the  purchasing  power  of  his  dollars  has 
increased. 

I  dislike  to  characterize  his  essay  in  unfriendly 
terms,  but  it  is  that  kind  of.  writing,  now  so  much  in 
vogue  from  labor  agitators  and  would-be  reformers, 
which  hurts  the  cause  it  would  help,  confuses  the  true 
issues,  obscures  sound  judgment,  and  helps  to  par- 
alyze the  efforts  of  those  who  would  gladly  aid  the 
humbler  members  of  society  to  attain  a  better  hold 
on  life. 


223 


MAKING  BREAD  CHEAP. 

AN    ANSWER   TO   THE    CRITICISM    OF    "A    SYMPATHIZER' 
BY   WHEELBARROW. 


In  the  last  number  of  The  Open  Court  I  find  a 
formidable  criticism  by  a  *'  Sympathizer  "  who  reproves 
me  as  a  "  would  be  reformer,"  **  paralyzing  the  efforts 
of  those  who  would  gladly  aid  the  humbler  members 
of  society  to  attain  a  better  hold  on  life." 

At  first  I  was  disposed  to  regret  my  article  "Mak- 
ing Bread  Dear",  if  the  tendency  of  it  was  to  such  a 
mischievous  result;  but  on  reflection  I  saw  that  it  had 
worked  the  other  way;  and  I  felt  rather  proud  that  it 
had  not  been  without  a  good  effect  on  Sympathizer. 
It  did  not  paralyze  him.  It  aroused  him.  It  moved 
him  so  strongly  that  he  investigated  the  evils  I  de- 
nounced. He  examined  my  accusations  and  answered 
them. 

The  first  witness  offered  by  Sympathizer  for  the 
defense  is  a  farmer,  who  did  not  know  of  "  any  com- 
bination to  make  wheat  or  flour  high."  Sympathizer 
went  to  the  wrong  farmer.  He  should  have  gone  to 
one  of  those  grateful  farmers  who  sent  a  memorial  to 
the  very  forestaller  I  complained  of,  thanking  him  for 
raising  the  price  of  wheat  by  working  a.  "  corner  "  in 
which  hundreds  of  men  were  "squeezed"  into  poverty, 
the  prime  article  of  life  bewitched,  and  the  hunger  of 
the  poor  increased.     I  assert  that  any   agency  is  im- 


224  WHEELBARROW. 

moral  which  obstructs  the  natural  ebb  and  flow  of  the 
tide  running  up  and  down  between  the  producer  and 
the  consumer,  that  healthy,  navigable  stream  which  is 
called  "  supply  and  demand."  It  is  an  immoral  agency 
that  by  conspiracy  or  cunning  raises  the  price  of  bread 
to  the  hod-carrier,  or  lowers  the  price  of  wheat  to  the 
farmer. 

It  is  a  mistake  that  the  farmer's  pay  is  only  82 
cents  per  day.  Statistics  may  say  that,  but  they  can- 
not prove  it  because  it  is  not  true.  Sympathizer's 
friend,  I  suppose,  meant  a  net  income  of  82  cents  a  day 
over  and  above  all  expenses.  It  must  also  be  a  mis- 
take that  farmers  are  moving  into  the  city  to  compete 
with  shovelers.  I  have  not  yet  seen  any  farmers  who 
desire  to  trade  ploughs  for  wheelbarrows.  If  the 
statement  were  true  it  would  prove  that  agriculture 
had  become  the  weak,  attenuated  base  of  American 
existence,  and  our  social  fabric  would  topple  over, 
splitting  itself  to  pieces  in  the  fall  like  an  iceberg  in 
the  sea.  I  admit  that  the  farmer  is  much  poorer 
than  he  ought  to  be  ;  I  admit  that  he  is  the  victim 
of  numerous  legalized  extortions,  but  as  he  seems 
to  enjoy  them,  and  fears  that  they  may  be  lifted  from 
him,  I  will  try  to  bear  his  poverty  with  resignation, 
although  I  have  no  patience  with  my  own. 

The  next  witness  is  a  miller  who  testified  as  fol- 
lows, "There  is  no  combination  among  millers.  On 
the  contrary,  if  we  get  twenty-five  cents  per  barrel  for 
the  use  of  our  mill  and  the  risk  we  take  we  are  satis- 
fied." The  honesty  of  millers  is  proverbial,  but  I  think 
this  testimony  will  not  stand  the  test  of  cross-exami- 
nation. Did  the  witness  mean  that  he  made  a  barrel 
of  flour  for  twenty-five  cents,  paying  his  workmen  out 
of  that,  and  also  his  taxes,  and  insurance  ?  "  Or  did  he 


MAKING  BREAD  CHEAP.  11^ 

mean  that  his  profit  was  twenty-five  cents  a  barrel  ? 
As  to  the  "  eombination,"  I  fear  that  Sympathizer's 
miller  has  not  yet  got  the  key  to  it.  According  to  the 
journals  published  in  the  milling  interest,  negotiations 
have  been  for  several  months  in  progress  looking  to  a 
combination  of  the  big  millers  to  freeze  out  the  little 
ones,  and  abolish  that  "fierce  competition."  I  have 
no  doubt  that  the  conspiracy  will  eventually  succeed. 

The  next  witness  was  a  man  who  testified  for  the 
Board  of  Trade.  He  was  not  himself  a  member  of  the 
Board  but  he  knew  all  about  its  machinery  and 
methods.  He  was  one  of  those  exasperating  witnesses 
who  know  too  much,  and  hoodoo  the  side  that  calls 
them.  It  will  be  necessary  now  to  bring  on  a  real 
member  of  the  Board  to  contradict  or  explain  the  tes- 
timony of  Sympathizer's  friend.  His  evidence  verified 
my  complaint,  and  showed  that  the  price  of  bread  can 
be  artificially  raised  by  "operations"  on  the  Board  of 
Trade.  Nothing  can  be  more  cold-hearted  and  selfish 
than  the  following  testimony:  "  The  speculator  operates 
to  make  money.  He  buys  hoping  for  a  rise,  or  he  sells 
for  future  delivery  hoping  for  a  decline.'"  Let  Sym- 
pathizer read  that  sentence  carefully  and  he  will  see 
that  it  springs  from  the  ethics  of  the  "pit"  where  con- 
science is  drugged  and  stupefied.  Let  him  bear  in  mind 
that  the  "speculator"  spoken  of  "operates"  on  the 
bread  of  the  poor;  I  ^3.y  the  bread  of  the  poor  because 
bread  is  literally  the  staff  of  life  to  the  working  man, 
while  it  is  a  trifling  element  in  the  rich  man's  bill  of 
fare. 

What  is  it  that  the  speculator  buys  "  hoping  for  a 
rise?  Wheat!  Just  think  of  a  man  wasting  his  religion 
in  praying  for  a  rise  in  the  price  of  wheat!  This,  too, 
in  a  prayer  sometimes  three  months  long.     '  Or  to  sell 


226  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

for  future  delivery  hoping  for  a  decline.'''"  What  a  per- 
verted moral  instinct  it  must  be  that  prompts  a  man 
to  hope  that  the  value  of  an  article  will  diminish  after 
he  has  sold  it  to  his  neighbor.  Is  it  really  true  that 
no  man  can  prosper  unless  at  the  expense  of  others  ? 

The  defense  is  as  bad  as  the  offense.  Here  is  the 
explanation  :  The  speculator  sold  at  a  stated  price 
for  future  delivery  that  which  he  did  not  have,  but 
which  he  must  buy  before  the  day  agreed  on  to  deliver 
it.  For  instance,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  Peter  sold  Paul 
one  hundred  thousand  bushels  of  wheat  at  one  dollar 
per  bushel  to  be  delivered  on  the  30th  day  of  June.  Peter 
doesn't  own  a  bushel  of  wheat  but  has  two  months  in 
which  to  buy  it.  He  spends  the  two  months  in  pray- 
ing that  wheat  may  fall  to  seventy-five  cents  a  bushel. 
His  prayers  are  granted,  and  he  buys  the  hundred 
thousand  bushels  of  wheat  for  seventy-five  thousand 
dollars.  He  delivers  them  to  Paul  and  demands  and 
receives  from  him  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  the 
wheat,  He  cares  nothing  for  the  fact  that  the  wheat 
is  not  worth  what  he  takes  for  it,  nor  for  the  further 
fact  that  the  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  won  by 
Peter  may  be  the  measure  of  Paul's  ruin. 

Not  only  do  the  "  operators  "  pray  for  those  unnat- 
uial  prices,  but  they  also  work  for  them,  and  effect 
them.  Here  is  the  confession  of  sympathizer's  wit- 
ness: "If  the  price  is  for  the  moment  higher  than  any 
individual  trader's  opinion  of  the  real  price,  he  will 
offer  for  sale,  and  thus  effect  the  price  downward.  If 
he  thinks  it  too  low,  he  will  buy  in  the  market,  and 
thus  influence  the  market  upward.  The  opinions  thus 
backed  by  monied  risk,  are  much  superior  to  the  ex 
parte  notion  of  Wheelbarrow,  or  any  other  person  who 
merely  stands  off  and  looks  on." 


MAKING  BREAD  CHEAP,  227 

I  do  not  see  the  superiority  of  those  opinions  to 
mine,  for  they  are  the  very  same  opinions  that  I  my- 
self expressed.  I  complained  that  rich  operators  could 
affect  the  market,  and  effect  the  rise  or  fall  of  wheat  by  the 
aid  of  money.  What  is  gambling  but  "opinions  backed 
by  monied  risk  ? "  That  expression  is  a  plagiarism 
from  the  invitation  of  the  man  who  runs  the  wheel  of 
fortune  at  the  races.  "  Step  forward,  gentlemen,  and 
back  your  own  opinions." 

Manufacturing  or  Commercial  industry  "backed  by 
monied  risk"  is  a  very  different  thing  to  the  specula- 
tion on  the  prices  of  things  which  the  seller  does  not 
own  and  the  buyer  does  not  want ;  things  which  are 
not  now  and  never  will  be  in  the  possession  of  either 
party,  and  which  perhaps  are  not  yet  in  existence.  This 
kind  of  speculation  does  not  equalize  the  temperature 
of  prices,  and  make  a  fair  average  one  month  with 
another  between  the  producer  and  the  consumer.  In 
a  market  subject  to  artificial  derangement,  the  poor 
man  must  always  pay  for  a  speculative  margin  which 
the  baker  must  keep  on  the  price  of  bread  to  protect 
him  from  a  possible  rise  in  flour.  Every  man  who  han- 
dles the  wheat  from  the  time  it  leaves  the  farm  until 
it  is  sold  in  the  form  of  bread,  is  compelled  to  insure 
himself  against  a  possible  speculative  inflation  of  its 
price,  and  the  consurner  pays  the  insurance. 

The  witness  did  not  deny  that  "  corners "  were 
operated  by  rich  men  on  the  Board  of  Trade.  He  not 
only  admitted  it  but  gave  examples  of  its  vicious  and 
gambling  character.  I  submit  my  case  on  the  testi- 
mony of  Sympathizer's  witness.  The  details  of  hio 
testimony  reveal  commercial  business  in  its  most 
heartless  form,  where  the  measure  of  one  man's  gain 
is  the  measure  of  another  man's  loss.     In  reply  to 


2  2  8  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

the  apology  that  "  their  influence  is  so  brief,  they  sel- 
dom affect  the  price  of  the  product  to  the  actual  con- 
sumer," I  offer  the  fact  that  the  great  "  corner  "  of 
three  months  ago  did  actually  raise  the  price  of  bread 
in  the  city  of  Chicago.  The  coal  barons  of  New  York 
who  levied  a  tax  on  all  consumers  of  coal,  are  well  re- 
membered still.  Answer  that,  explain  it,  or  excuse  it 
if  you  can. 

Sympathiser's  witness  tells  us  that  '*  corners  "  are 
merely  "  episodes."  He  says:  "They  are  like  raids  in 
the  rear  of  an  army  or  piratical  excursions  over  ordi- 
nary peaceful  seas."  What  further  testimony  is  nec- 
essary to  their  amiable  and  benevolent  character  ? 
Fancy  Captain  Kidd  on  trial  for  scuttling  ships.  Sym- 
pathiser's friend  is  called  in  as  a  witness  to  character. 
He  testifies  that  he  is  well  acquainted  with  the  defend- 
ant, and  that  he  is  merely  an  inoffensive  pirate;  that 
he  did  not  scuttle  all  the  ships  on  the  ocean  "  as  he 
sailed,  as  he  sailed,"  but  only  a  few  of  them;  and  that 
his  "influence  was  so  brief  as  to  not  affect  the  price  of 
the  product  to  the  actual  consumer.' 

Suppose  a  gang  of  pirates  should  raid  Lake  Mich- 
igan for  a  few  days,  plunder  ships,  and  destroy  them, 
swoop  down  upon  Chicago  and  carry  off  rich  booty, 
would  Symnathiser  comfort  the  victims  of  the  raid  by 
the  assurance  that  the  influence  of  the  pirates  "  is 
next  to  nil"  ? 

Sympathizer  says  that  I  have  no  right  to  claim  an 
interest  in  the  increase  of  my  country's  wealth,  nor,  I 
suppose,  in  the  expansion  of  its  glory.  He  says  that 
as  a  wheeler  of  earth  I  can  do  no  more  "  in  that  line  " 
than  my  predecessor  did  a  thousand  years  ago.  That 
is  true,  and  I  only  ask  wages  in  proportion  to  the  rank 
of  my  wheelbarrow  in  the  scale  of  productive  activities. 


MAKING  BREAD  CHEAP.  229 

The  wealth  of  a  country  is  the  product  of  all  its 
industrial  forces  working  together.  Let  us  suppose 
that  of  this  product  the  wheelbarrow  contributes  one 
part,  the  jackplane  two  parts,  the  trowel  three,  the 
plough  four,  the  yardstick  five,  and  so  on  up  to  the 
banker's  ready  reckoner,  which  we  represent  as  ten. 
In  twenty  years  the  product  of  them  all  has  doubled  \ 
shall  the  banker's  share  be  twenty,  the  merchant's  ten, 
the  farmer's  eight,  the  trowel's  six,  the  jackplane's 
four,  and  the  wheelbarrow's  only  one.  I  insist  that  in 
proportion  to  my  rank  in  the  scale  of  production  I  am 
entitled  to  my  share  of  the  increase.  I  am  a  stock- 
holder in  the  Bank  of  Industry,  and  I  am  entitled  to 
my  dividends  in  proportion  to  the  stock  I  hold.  If  I 
did  not  wheel  earth  somebody  else  would  have  to  do 
it,  perhaps  the  bricklayer,  or  the  clerk,  or  the  mer- 
chant, or  the  banker,  for  wheeling  of  earth  must  be 
done.  When  in  the  great  lottery  of  life  the  duty  of 
doing  it,  fell  to  me,  I  bore  upon  my  shoulders  men  of 
greater  skill  to  work  at  higher  trades  than  mine. 
Without  me  to  stand  on,  they  must  have  worked  upon 
a-  lower  plane.  I  am  willing  that  the  man  who  con- 
tributes five  talents  to  the  capital  stock  shall  receive 
another  five  over  and  above.  I  envy  not  the  hundred 
per  cent,  reward  to  him  who  has  contributed  four,  or 
three,  or  two  talents,  but  I  insist  that  my  one  talent,  if 
I  bury  it  not  in  the  ground,  but  throw  it  into  the  com- 
mon fund,  shall  be  doubled  in  honor  like  the  rest. 

While  other  men  grow  up  with  the  country  must 
I  stand  still  ?  As  I  cannot  release  myself  from  duty 
to  my  country,  neither  can  any  other  man  justly  de- 
prive me  of  my  share  in  its  greatness  and  its  growth. 
You  can  no  more  justly  deprive  me  of  my  share  in  the 
/ncrease  of  national  riches  than   of  my  share  in  the 


2  30  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

increase  of  national  freedom,  for  which  I  fought  in 
many  battles.  Have  I  no  inheritance  in  the  legacy  of 
the  past  ?  Did  the  great  inventors  and  discoverers 
leave  me  nothing  when  they  died  ?  As  well  tell  me 
that  Shakespere,  Goethe,  Plato,  Newton,  Bacon,  left 
me  nothing,  i  am  heir  of  all  the  men  whose  genius 
has  multiplied  ihe  moral  and  material  riches  of  the 
world.  Every  other  man  is  co-heir  with  me  in  the 
great  inheritance,  and  every  woman  too. 

Sympathizer  kindly  advises  that  if  my  Wheelbar- 
row wages  is  too  low,  I  turn  my  attention  to  the  Bar, 
the  Pulpit,  or  the  Press.  This  is  like  the  physician 
who  advertised  advice  gratis  to  the  poor,  and  when 
they  came  for  it,  recommended  them  to  try  the  climate 
and  the  waters  of  Baden-Baden.  Does  Sympathizer 
know  of  any  wealthy  congregation  in  want  of  a 
preacher  of  my  peculiar  faith? 

Let  it  not  be  thought  that  my  censures  were  aimed 
at  the  Board  of  Trade  as  a  corporation,  or  at  its  mem- 
bers as  a  class.  They  were  aimed  at  certain  methods 
practiced  by  certain  men  within  the  privileges  and  op- 
portunities of  the  Board,  methods  which  are  confessed 
and  condemned  by  Sympathizer  and  his  witnesses. 
Many  of  the  most  honorable,  generous,  and  useful  men 
in  this  community  are  members  of  the  Board  of  Trade; 
men  whose  friendship  any  man  may  be  proud  to  enjoy. 

When  I  demand  cheap  bread,  I  do  not  wish  to  de- 
prive the  farmer,  the  miller,  or  the  Board  of  Trade 
man,  or  anybody  who  contributes  to  its  production 
and  distribution,  of  his  deserved  reward.  Everybody 
who  does  work  for  the  benefit  of  society  is  employed 
in  his  own  way  to  make  bread  cheap.  Bread,  it  is 
true,  under  special  conditions,  with  a  given  amount  of 
labor  and  its  machinery,  cannot  be  cheaper  than  the 


MAKING  BREAD  CHEAP.  231 

legitimate  wages  of  its  producers.  But  its  price  is 
often  increased  by  additional  taxes  levied  upon  it  by 
industrial  "  pirates  "  that  intervene  between  the  legit- 
imate distributors.  Theirs  is  that  making  bread  dear 
of  which  I  spoke. 

Let  us  unite  against  the  common  enemies  of  so- 
ciety. Every  honest  calling  is  productive  of  some 
good.  It  makes  life  easier  and  better.  The  honest 
business  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  as  Sympathizer  ex- 
plains, is  to  equalize  the  price  of  wheat  and  facilitate 
its  journey  from  the  farm  to  the  laborer  in  the  city. 
That  appears  to  me  to  be  a  useful  work  and  I  can  see 
how  it  may  tend  toward  "making  bread  cheap.  From 
what  I  had  heard  of  Sympathizer's  article,  I  expected 
a  complete  refutation,  but  I  think  he  strengthens  my 
position.  I  see  clearer  than  ever  that  "  makmg  bread 
dear"  is  a  crime. 


232  WHEELBARROW. 


THE  TWO  SIDES  OF  THE  QUESTION. 


A  REJOINDER  TO  WHEELBARROW   ON  MAKING   BREAD  DEAR. 
BY    A    SYMPATHIZER    (LYMAN    J.    GAGE). 

Wheelbarrow  complains  in  his  last  essay  about 
the  small  inheritance  of  wealth  or  reward  which  he 
receives  from  the  increased  productivity  of  society  as 
a  whole.     He  demands  higher  wages. 

Space  will  not  permit  any  thorough  consideration 
of  Wheelbarrow's  complaint,  but,  adopting  his  com- 
parisons and  figures,  may  not  the  following  suggestions 
go  part-way  towards  explaining  the  small  share  which 
comes  to  him,  as  an  individual  ?  He  has  supposed, 
and  seems  to  approve  as  reasonable,  a  certain  relative 
value  in  industries.  Thus  wheelbarrows  as  a  class,  he 
says,  are  entitled  to  one  part  in  the  industrial  product, 
jackplanes  two  parts,  the  plough  four  parts,  etc.  Now 
he  supposes  that  in  twenty  years  the  product  of  them 
all  has  doubled.  Shall  the  farmer's  part  now  be  eight, 
the  jackplane's  four,  and  the  wheelbarrow's  still  only 
one  ? 

Accepting  his  formula,  may  it  not  be  true  that 
wheelbarrows,  as  a  group,  taken  altogether,  do  get 
their  portion  doubled,  as  jackplanes  as  a  whole  receive 
their  double  portion  ?  If  this  be  true,  then  the  division 
of  the  share  coming  to  these  groups  would  become 
equitably  divided  among  the  units  composing  them. 
If,  therefore,  the  units  composing  the  wheelbarrow 
group   increased  in  a  faster  ratio  than  the  units  com- 


THE  TWO  SIDES  OE  THE  QUESTION.     233 

posing  the  jackplane  group,  the  share  to  the  units  in 
the  wheelbarrow  group  would  be  relatively  less  than 
would  fall  to  the  units  or  individuals  composing  the 
jackplane  group.  If  all  men  were  wheelers,  there  would 
be  no  productivity.  Neither  must  the  wheelbarrow 
wing  of  the  great  industrial  army  be  too  large.  So- 
ciety can  afford  to  that  group,  as  a  division,  only  a  cer- 
tain share. 

In  fact,  I  believe  and  statistics  seem  to  prove,  that 
the  comparative  increase  seems  to  favor  the  lowest 
class  of  workers.  The  unskilled  laborer  could  in  for- 
mer ages  scarcely  earn  his  daily  bread  and  in  rare 
cases  only  provide  himself  with  a  home  and  have  a 
family.  He  is  comparatively  best  paid  in  a  highly  civ- 
ilized society.  Any  increase  of  industrial  productivity 
will  benefit  all  classes,  but  the  least  skilled  do  com- 
paratively profit  most  of  all. 

The  individuals  composing  a  group  or  division, 
if  their  share  of  the  allotment  be  too  small,  must  join 
some  other  division,  and  no  motive  can  be  more  ef- 
fective than  the  desire  to  gain  a  larger  individual  share 
of  the  total  industrial  product.  This  is,  however,  only 
a  suggestion.  The  question  is  a  large  one.  It  deserves 
serious  and  continued  study. 

It  is  a  hopeful  sign  that  modern  thought  is  becom- 
ing engaged  with  it.  Let  us  hope  that  through  the  in- 
telligence displayed  in  Wheelbarrow,  and  the  growing 
intellectual  power  evident  on  every  side  among  work- 
ingmen,  the  great  questions  of  our  social  economics 
will  find  at  last  a  just  and  final  solution. 

But  let  us  confine  our  attention  to  the  main  point 
of  our  discussion  which  is  the  "crime  of  making  bread 
dear." 


234  WHEELBARROW. 

It  is  somewhat  anomalous  that  one  who  has  never 
owned  a  bushel  of  wheat,  nor  more  than  one  barrel  of 
flour  at  any  one  time,  should  find  himself  defending 
speculation  in  bread-stuffs.  But  as  the  probability  is 
that  *'  Wheelbarrow  "  is  in  about  the  same  case,  we 
both  have  the  advantage  of  looking  at  the  subject  from 
a  comparatively  disinterested  standpoint ;  and  I  think 
we  both  desire  to  find  the  truth. 

His  review  of  my  criticism  is  keen  and  searching ; 
but  if  I  may  say  so,  it  appears  to  be  a  little  disingen- 
uous. For  instance,  my  ''witness"  said  :  "The  spec- 
ulator buys  hoping  for  a  rise,  or  sells  hoping  for  a  de- 
cline." Wheelbarrow  thereupon  attacks  him,  and  tries 
to  impeach  his  character.     He  says: 

"  Nothing  can  be  more  cold-hearted  and  selfish  than  such  tes- 
timony ;  it  springs  from  the  ethics  of  the  pit.  Just  think  of  a  man 
wasting  his  religion  in  praying  for  a  rise  in  wheat.  This,  too,  in 
a  prayer  sometimes  three  months  long." 

Well,  I  think  I  ought  not  to  have  exposed  my  wit- 
ness to  this  stricture ;  and  perhaps  I  ought  to  have 
stated  in  specific  terms  that  a  speculator  rarely  prays, 
and  if  he  does,  it  is  as  often  that  he  prays  for  a  decline 
as  for  a  rise.  My  witness  used  the  word  "hope"  it  is 
true,  when  the  word  "belief"  would  have  expressed  the 
facts  more  clearly.  Let  us  say,  then,  that  the  specu- 
lator buys  believing  that  wheat  will  rise  in  price,  or 
sells  believing  it  will  fall  in  price,  and  thus  save  Wheel- 
barfow  from  further  moral  pain. 

Again,  my  "witness"  did  not  defend  corners.  He 
first  explained  them,  and  then  candidly  admitted  that 
they  bore  to  the  regular  operators  of  the  Board  of 
Trade  about  the  relation  that  a  piratical  excursion 
bears  to  commerce,  or  that  the  hurried  raid  in  the  rear 
of  an  army  bears  to   the  regular  movement  of  a  cam- 


THE   TWO  SIDES  OF  THE  QUESTION.     235 

paign.  But  Wheelbarrow  scolds  my  witness  as  a  de- 
fender of  these  objectionable,  though  brief,  influences, 
and  this  is  not  quite  ingenuous. 

Where  commerce  covers  the  sea  with  ships  minis- 
tering to  the  needs  of  man,  experience  shows  that  the 
pirate  may,  now  and  again,  in  ships  manned  by  men, 
make  excursions  hostile  to  commerce  ;  but  experience 
shows  also,  that  these  are  incidents,  and  that  their 
total  effect  is  next  to  nil,  and  it  is  a  comfort  to  know 
that  it  is  so.  It  is  satisfactory,  also,  to  know  that 
"corners"  are  in  their  nature  brief  events,  incidents 
to  greater  movements,  and  that  in  the  sweep  of  time 
their  influence  is  comparatively  unimportant. 

I  am  ready  to  join  with  Wheelbarrow  (abandoning 
my  witness  if  necessary)  in  denunciation  of  the  kind 
of  "cornerers  "  who  resemble  pirates.  But  there  re- 
main the  "cornerers"  whose  actions  my  witness  lik- 
ened to  that  of  a  hostile  raid  in  the  rear  of  an  army. 
This  does  not  resemble  piracy.  It  is  often  excusable. 
It  is  frequently  patriotic  and  praiseworthy.  Wheel- 
barrow himself  says  : 

' '  When  I  demand  cheap  bread,  I  do  not  wish  to  deprive  the 
farmer,  the  miller,  or  the  Board  of  Trade  man,  or  anybody  who 
contributes  to  its  production  and  distribution,  of  his  deserved  re- 
ward." 

This  is  just  and  right,  but  if  Wheelbarrow  would 
study  the  facts,  he  would  find  that  there  is  frequently 
at  work  an  influence  which,  if  left  unchecked,  would 
rob  the  farmer,  if  no  one  else,  of  his  hard  earned  re- 
ward. This  influence  is  the  "  short  seller."  Like  the 
poor,  he  is  always  with  us,  though  more  audacious. 
An  honest  believer  he  may  be  that  lower  prices  will 
prevail,  owing  to  his  belief  in  increased  crops,  or  a  di- 
minishing demand.     He  will  sell  for  future  delivery  if 


236  WHEELBARROW. 

anyone  will  buy.  Like  an  auctioneer,  he  will  offer  it 
down  until  he  finds  a  buyer. 

In  former  times  governments  perforjned  the  func- 
tions of  the  Board  of  Trade  equalizing  the  price  of 
grain  by  establishing  storehouses,  buying  when  the 
price  of  wheat  was  low  and  selling  when  it  was  high. 
They  thereby  lowered  the  price  of  bread  in  hard  and 
raised  it  in  good  times,  thus  favoring  now  the  farmer 
and  now  the  consumer.  A  socialistic  government 
would  have  to  do  the  same  as  did  the  old  paternal 
governments.  Whether  they  would  do  it  as  well  as 
the  Board  of  Trade  does  it  now,  remains  doubtful. 

Now,  let  us  suppose  a  practical  case — a  case  which 
has  more  than  once  had  real  existence. 

A  ''rich"  man  on  the  Board  of  Trade,  performing 
the  function  of  the  benevolent  government  of  former 
times,  discovers  that  the  course  of  the  market  has 
brought  the  price  of  wheat  to  a  point  which  does  not 
yield  to  the  farmer  his  "deserved  reward,"  nor  such 
a  price  as  to  justify  him  ir^  future  effort  to  raise  wheat 
on  his  farm,  if  the  current  price  were  to  continue.  In 
the  <^<f//^that  such  a  state  of  things  cannot  long  con- 
tinue, this  "rich"  man  buys.  Possibly  he  has  a  warm 
sympathy  with  the  poor  farmer,  whose  crop  is  ready  to 
market :  at  all  events,  he  buys  :  he  buys  largely.  Does 
the  price  advance  ?  No,  it  declines.  To  average  his 
purchase,  he  doubles  his  first  purchase  at  the  now 
lower  price.  Does  it  then  advance?  No!  it  declines. 
He  figures  up  the  extent  of  his  holding.  He  finds  that 
he  has  purchased  for  an  early  delivery  nearly  as  much 
as  the  total  stock  in  our  warehouses,  but  the  price  is 
still  falling. 

He  goes  upon  "change."  A  score  of  voices  are 
offering  to   sell,  by  the  thousands,  by  the  hundreds  of 


THE  TWO  SIDES  OE  THE  QUESTION.     237 

thousands  of  bushels,  competing  with  each  other  at 
fractions  less  in  price  at  every  breath.  Shall  he  join 
that  shouting  throng,  surrender  his  judgment,  sell  as 
best  he  can,  bear  his  losses  the  best  he  may.  He  will 
not  do  so  if  he  begins  his  name  with  an  ^'  H."  He 
discovers  that  a  planned  campaign  has  been  inaugu- 
rated by  the  "bears  "  to  break  the  market  to  the  lowest 
point,  and  by  heavy  calls  on  him  for  margins,  compel 
him  to  let  go  his  holdings,  and  sell  to  them  at  their 
own  price. 

To  face  such  a  situation  requires  nerve  and  courage 
of  the  highest  order.  If  this  buyer  has  it,  and  can  con- 
trol the  capital  necessary,  he  will  plan  a  work  similar 
to  that  of  "a  raid  in  the  rear  of  an  enemy."  He  will 
buy.  He  will  buy  all  that  is  offered.  He  will  control 
or  corner  the  market.  Only  thus  can  he  protect  him- 
self. If  he  is  successful,  he  teaches  reckless  men, — 
men  who  have  no  regard  for  the  farmer's  "deserved 
reward,"  that  there  is  retribution  for  their  reckless  dis- 
regard of  equity.  And  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that, 
under  the  condition  I  have  sketched,  his  action  con- 
duces to  the  welfare  of  the  country,  and  herein  is  pa- 
triotic and  praiseworthy. 

Wheelbarrow  asks — and  his  question  possesses  a 
pathetic  interest :  "  What  is  it  that  the  speculator 
buys?"  And  he  answers  with  impressive  emotion: 
"Wheat!" 

Will  Wheelbarrow  allow  us  to  remain  calm  at  all 
his  excitement  ? 

What  is  it  that  all  buyers  and  sellers  buy  and  sell? 
If  it  is  not  wheat,  it  is  meat,  or  fruit,  or  coal,  or  tools, 
or  books,  or  other  necessities  which  men  want  and  use. 
Every  article,  be  it  made  of  iron  or  wood,  may  it  serve 
directly  for  the  production  of  food  or  indirectly  to  the 


238  WHEELBARROW. 

prolongation  and  amelioration  or  elevation  of  life  is  to 
some  extent  "  our  daily  bread."  Man  does  not  live 
upon  bread  alone,  and  in  a  certain  sense  we  all  are 
engaged  in  producing  bread — life -stuff  for  human 
beings — in  some  form,  and  who  will  deny  that  everybody 
attempts  to  sell  his  part  of  it  as  dear  as  possible  ?  and 
everybody  has  a  right  to  do  so.  Wheelbarrow  agrees 
with  me,  that  if  anybody's  work  is  more  difficult,  he 
may  have  greater  rewards,  and  the  scale  of  wages  can 
easily  be  regulated  by  free  competition. 

Wheelbarrow  becomes  sentimental  when  he  ob- 
serves that  some  people  deal  in  wheat,  and  that  they 
hope  for  a  rise  of  wheat. 

When  Wheelbarrow  delved  and  carried  earth  at  a 
railway  job,  he  undoubtedly  added  his  mite  to  the 
general  capital  and  was  engaged  in  making  bread 
cheap,  for  the  road  will  soon  carry  farmers  and  their 
machines  West  to  raise  more  wheat.  But  when  Wheel- 
barrow now  demands  his  wages  doubled,  his  own  and 
of  course  those  of  all  wheelers  of  earth  too,  he  prays 
for  making  bread  dear  ;  for  higher  wages  must  increase 
the  expenses  of  building  railroads,  and  if  any  impro- 
portionate  increase  of  wages  took  place  on  a  larger 
scale,  it  might  prevent  roads  to  be  built  and  thus 
would  necessarily  make  it  impossible  for  many  farm- 
ers to  go  West,  and  those  who  live  West  could  not 
send  their  wheat  East.  It  would  tend  to  making  bread 
dear. 

While  upon  the  whole.  Wheelbarrow,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  means  what  is  right  and  just,  he  has  one  fault, 
and  that  is  his  rhetoric.  What  is  the  use  of  senti- 
mentality in  economical  or  in  any  other  questions  ?  Let 
us  come  to  business  in  plain  and  clear  terms  without 
any  verbosity  and  ado,  and  we  will  the  quicker  under- 


THE  TWO  SIDES  OF  THE   QUESTION.     239 

stand  one  another.  Making  bread  cheap  in  the  sense 
Wheelbarrow  preaches,  may  be  well  enough,  but  let 
us  not  forget,  that  in  a  certain  sense,  we  are  entitled 
to  make  it  dear,  just  as  much  as  Wheelbarrow  is  en- 
titled to  demand  higher  wages,  if  he  can  get  them,  or 
rather — if  he  deserves  them. 

When  I  undertook  to  oppose  Wheelbarrow  I  chiefly 
intended  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  are  two 
aspects  of  the  question  of  making  bread  dear.  Labor 
agitators,  as  a  rule,  demand  that  "  the  bread  we  eat 
must  be  cheap,  but  for  the  bread  we  make  we  should 
demand  the  highest  price,"  and  the  short-sighted, 
credulous  listeners  are  apt  to  believe  him  who  prom- 
ises most.  They  do  not  see  that  agitators  preach  ''yes 
and  no"  in  one  breath,  that  sour  and  sweet  at  the 
same  time  comes  out  of  their  mouth. 

There  is  a  modern  reformer  appealing  with  his 
arguments  to  the  broad  masses,  who  promises  by  the 
simple  means  of  taxing  land  to  its  full  rental  value  to 
offer  bread  for  nothing.  Henry  George  says  in  "  Pro- 
gress and  Poverty,"  that  if  but  the  landlords  were 
taxed  out  of  existence,  we  would  realize  the  ideal  of 
the  communist.  We  shall  have  meals  at  public 
tables  for  the  mere  asking  of  it,  free  libraries,  free 
theatres,  free  baths,  free  railroads,  free  street  cars, 
heat  and  motor  power  furnished  in  our  houses  at  pub- 
lic expense,  etc.,  etc. 

What  is  that  else  than  offering  bread  gratis  ?  and 
it  is  bread  for  body  and  soul,  bread  of  any  description. 
But  if  all  that  can  be  had  for  the  mere  asking  of  it,  who 
will  then  work ?  "That  is  just  the  advantage  of  it," 
I  am  told,  "  wages  will  rise,  they  will  rise  as  high  as 
they  never  have  been,  and  men  will  not  work  at  all 
unless  it  be  for  the  pleasure  of  work." 


240  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

An  excellent  prospect  if  it  were  possible !  Pray, 
gentlemen,  how  can  you,  for  any  length  of  time,  dis- 
tribute values  gratis,  unless  you  can  also  create  them 
gratis? 

Mr.  George  promises  that  we  shall  reap  where  we 
did  not  sow  and  that  we  shall  have  an  unlimited 
credit  in  the  bank  of  public  prosperity  without  being 
obliged  to  make  any  deposit. 

Mr.  George  has  a  great  followership  and  whatever 
be  the  merit  of  his  idea  of  land  taxation,  nobody  seems 
to  be  aware  of  the  Utopian  scheme  of  what  constitutes 
Georgeism  proper.  He  promises  that  the  bread  we 
eat  shall  be  cheap,  so  cheap  that  it  is  given  for  the 
mere  asking  of  it,  and  the  bread  we  make  shall  be  dear, 
so  dear  that  nobody  shall  be  able  to  buy  it,  unless  he 
pays  the  full  price  we  demand. 

Let  us  cease  to  be  overawed  by  oratory.  There  is 
an  untruth  in  every  exaggeration  and  every  untruth 
contains  poison. 

Let  us  work  to  produce  bread,  every  one  in  his 
way ;  useful  work  will  lead  to  make  bread  cheap.  But 
at  the  same  time  let  us  bear  in  mind  that  bread  means 
human  labor,  it  means  human  lives.  Any  artificial  com- 
binations to  make  bread  dear  for  the  benefit  of  a  few 
conspirators — pirates  as  I  called  them — is  to  be  con- 
demned. In  that  I  fully  agree  with  Wheelbarrow. 
But  let  us  not  demand  that  bread  be  too  cheap,  for 
that  would  necessarily  degrade  a  certain  number  of 
human  lives  into  abject  poverty,  and  deprive  them  of 
their  due  reward  for  having  contributed  to  make 
bread. 


THE   SINGLE    TAX  QUESTION 


LETTERS    WRITTEN    IN    THE    CONTROVERSY    UPON 
THAT    SUBJECT. 


243 


THE  SOURCE  OF  POVERTY. 


A  REPLY  BY  WHEELBARROW  TO  MR.  L.'S  CRITICISM. 


Thanks  for  allowing  me  to  answer  Mr.  L.'s  criticism.  I 
like  to  meet  a  critic  who  frankly  confesses  that  he  comprehends 
the  subject  and  that  I  do  not.  From  such  a  critic  I  always  expect 
instruction,  and  seldom  get  it. 

Is  Mr.  L.  perfectly  sure  that  he  "comprehends"  the  case? 
His  illustrations  indicate  that  he  does  not.  True,  a  physician 
finding  his  patient  suffering  from  headache,  indigestion,  pains  in 
the  side,  and  cold  feet,  might  wisely  say,  "  These  are  lot  four  dis- 
eases, but  four  symptoms  of  one  disease,"  and  on  that  theory  he 
might  properly  prescribe  a  single  remedy;  but  suppose  four  pa- 
tients afflicted  with  different  disorders,  will  he  treat  them  all  alike? 
This  is  more  nearly  like  the  case  about  which  we  are  now  holding 
a  consultation,  and  Mr.  L.'s  instance  does  not  fit.  Society  is 
composed  bf  many  persons,  some  of  them  healthy  and  some  not. 
The  sick  patients  have  all  sorts  of  disorders,  and  the  cures  must 
be  as  various  as  the  causes  of  disease. 

"Poverty,"  says  Mr.  L.,  "  is  the  real  disease";  and  he  would 
abolish  it  by  levying  a  single  tax  on  land.  He  can  as  easily  re- 
move it  with  a  crowbar.  Whatever  poverty  results  from  land 
monopoly  will  vanish  when  that  monopoly  shall  cease  to  be;  but 
the  poverty  caused  by  the  land  system  is  only  a  small  portion  of 
the  aggregate  wants  and  deprivations  which  go  by  the  name  of 
poverty.  Poverty  is  a  consequence,  like  sorrow,  and  like  sorrow 
it  comes  from  a  thousand  springs.  The  college  of  physicians  was 
once  confounded  by  a  wise  man  who  advised  the  faculty  to  abolish 
"  sickness,"  instead  cf  attacking  diphtheria,  measles,  and  fever. 
"  Remove  sickness,  gentlemen!  "  he  said,  "and  all  the  diseases 
will  disappear/* 


244  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

A  good  many  years  ago,  I  lived  on  the  western  "frontier." 
Jerry  Dodd  was  the  only  doctor  in  our  village,  and  even  he  gradu- 
ated in  the  blacksmith  shop,  where  he  picked  up  his  medical  edu- 
cation by  physicking  horses.  Jerry  had  one  infallible  remedy  for 
all  diseases,  from  typhoid  fever  down  to  corns  and  bunions.  He 
called  it  "lobeely."  It  was  the  only  medicine  I  ever  took  that 
would  produce  sea-sickness  on  land.  No  matter  what  ailed  us; 
he  always  prescribed  "  lobeely;"  I  once  had  a  painful  felon  on  my 
thumb,  and  Jerry  made  me  take  a  stiff  dose  of  lobeely,  to  remove, 
he  said,  "the  poverty  of  the  blood."  So  I  am  continually  meeting 
with  Jerry  Dodds,  who  have  a  specific  for  the  cure  of  all  social  and 
political  ailments,  a  dose  of  "  lobeely  "  to  remove  all  the  poverty  of 
the  people. 

I  can  hardly  be  civil  to  the  doctrine  that  sobriety  and 
economy  reduce  wages;  but  as  I  used  to  believe  it  myself,  I 
will  treat  it  courteously.  Will  Mr.  L.  give  us  one  instance  in 
the  United  States  where  sobriety  and  economy  had  any  such  effect? 
When  the  temperance  movement  was  spreading  among  the  work- 
ingmen  of  England,  the  brewers  and  publicans  used  to  employ 
talkers  to  go  among  us  and  explain  that  the  whole  scheme  was  got- 
ten up  by  the  masters  to  lower  wages,  and  that  whenever  it  should 
become  evident  that  we  could  do  without  beer,  the  value  of  tHe 
beer  we  used  to  drink  would  be  deducted  from  our  wages.  I  be- 
lieved all  that  for  a  long  time,  but  at  last  I  noticed  that  when  a 
man  got  his  wages  raised,  or  was  promoted,  he  was  in  almost  every 
case  a  teetotaler.  As  soon  as  my  eyes  were  directed  tpwards  the 
actual  facts,  I  saw  in  a  moment  that  not  only  was  the  doctrine  false, 
but  that  the  reverse  of  it  was  true.  It  is  amazing  that  this  mis- 
chievous error  should  be  revived  in  the  United  States! 

When  and  where  did  Col.  Ingersoll  say  that  "the  bankbook  of 
a  mechanic  is  a  certificate  that  wages  are  too  high?"  Col.  Inger- 
soll has  said  many  eloquently  foolish  things,  but  I  do  not  believe 
he  ever  said  anything  so  foolish  as  that.  There  must  be  a  mistake 
about  the  quotation.  As  to  the  kindred  sentiment,  that  "  It  is  not 
men  we  must  try  to  improve;  it  is  the  conditions  that  make  men 
what  they  are  that  must  be  altered,"  I  repeat  that  it  has  been  for 
ages  an  obstacle  to  the  progress  of  mankind.  It  gives  us  a  cow- 
ardly excuse  for  laziness.  It  enables  us  to  shift  our  vices  and  mis- 
takes from  ourselves  to  our  "conditions."  It  encourages  us  to 
shirk  our  duty,  and  to  desert  the  moral  work  set  out  for  us  to  do. 
We  must  try  to  improve  men  and  their  conditions  too.   The  former 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  245 

is  the  more  important  action,  because  improved  men  will  improve 
conditions  long  before  improved  conditions  will  improve  men.  I 
do  not  think  it  well  to  place  these  two  reforms  in  opposition  to  each 
other  or  in  contrast.  They  should  march  along  step  by  step  to- 
gether, like  two  soldiers  of  the  same  file. 

"  A  certain  man  went  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho,  and 
fell  among  thieves,  which  stripped  him  of  his  raiment,  and 
wounded  him,  and  departed,  leaving  him  haff  dead."  A  priest 
and  a  Levite  came  along,  both  of  them  wholesale  reformers,  and 
they  said,  ' '  To  help  this  man  would  be  beneath  our  dignity  ;  we 
are  not  in  the  retail  business.  Let  us  alter  the  '  conditions  '  that 
produce  thieves,  and  highway  robbery  will  cease."  Then  came  a 
Samaritan  and  said,  "I  will  gladly  assist  you  to  reform  society 
by  wholesale,  but  while  we  are  doing  it,  I  do  not  think  it  beneath 
me  to  do  good  in  a  retail  way."  So  he  went  to  the  injured  man, 
"and  bound  up  his  wounds,  pouring  in  oil  and  wine;  and  set  him 
on  his  own  beast,  and  brought  him  to  an  inn,  and  took  care  of 
him."  The  itioral  of  this  is,  work  for  the  removal  of  suffering 
wherever  you  find  it.  There  are  many  wrongs  in  our  social  and 
political  systems,  each  one  producing  its  own  share  of  poverty.  By 
removing  each  separate  wrong  we  remove  its  quota  of  evil;  and 
the  man  who  thinks  he  has  some  stuff  in  a  bottle  that  will  cure 
everything,  is  enthusiastically  wrong.  It  is  a  mistake  that  a 
single  tax  on  land  will  remove  the  poverty  caused  by  drunkenness, 
idleness,  rheumatism,  or  falling  among  thieves.  The  man  who 
will  do  nothing  to  remove  our  social  evils,  but  levy  a  single  tax  on 
land,  simply  leaves  the  victim  of  injustice  to  die  on  the  Jericho 
road 

I  have  no  excuses  to  offer  for  the  wickedness  of  the  ' '  Coal 
Barons,"  who  lock  up  nature's  coal  cellars  and  turn  the  miners  out. 
If  I  had  my  way  there  would  not  be  any  coal  barons,  nor  any 
other  "barons  "  for  that  matter;  but  without  any  further  dwelling 
upon  that,  I  proceed  to  answer  Mr.  L.'s  question  concerning  the 
locked-out  miners.  "  Does  not  Wheelbarrow  see  that  the  strictest 
economy,  the  temperance  of  a  St.  John  can  be  of  no  avail  to  those 
unfortunate  men?"  Well,  no,  I  do  not  see  any  such  thing.  It  ap- 
pears to  me  that  under  the  circumstances  temperance  and  economy 
must  be  of  great  avail.  It  is  easy  to  say  that  they  have  been  de- 
prived of  '  'the  right  to  the  use  of  the  earth, "  and  I  rather  think  myself 
that  they  ought  to  have  the  coal  mines;  at  least  I  wish  they  had  them, 
but  would  they  not  be  coal  barons  then?     And  suppose  I  should  go 


246  .  WHEELBARROW. 

therewith  my  shovel,  pickaxe,  and  wheelbarrow,  and  begin  digging 
coal  for  a  living,  how  long  would  it  take  them  to  fire  me  out  of  the 
mine?  And  if  I  should  tell  them  that  I  had  a  "  right  to  the  use  of 
the  earth,"  they  would  say,  "  Yes,  but  not  to  that  part  of  the  earth 
which  your  neighbor  has  a  right  to  the  use  of."  And  how  could  I 
answer  that?  Phil.  Fogarty,  an  Irish  friend  of  mine,  was  presi- 
dent of  the  land  league,  and  one  day  he  told  me  that  he  had  hired 
a  man  to  kill  landlords. 

"What  do  you  pay  him  for  the  job?" 

"  I  give  him  a  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land  for  every  land- 
lord he  kills." 

"What  if  he  kill  ten  landlords?" 

"  Then  he  will  get  sixteen  hundred  acres  of  land." 

"  Why,  that  will  make  him  a  landlord;  will  it  not?" 

"Yes,  but  I  have  a  man  ready  to  kill  him  then." 
,    While  Mr.  L.  is  abolishing  the   ' '  conditions  "   which  produce 
"coal  barons,"  let  him  be  careful  that  he  substitute  not  some  new 
"  conditions  "  that  will  create  new  "  barons." 

All  poverty  will  not  be  removed  by  sobriety  and  thrift,  but 
they  will  abolish  that  part  of  it  which  has  been  caused  by  improvi- 
dence and  drink.  I  think  these  propositions  are  self-evident,  yet  Mr. 
L.  thinks  the  result  of  them  would  be  to  reduce  us  "  to  a  mere 
animal  existence."  The  man  who  believes  that  self-discipline,  in- 
dustry, economy,  temperance,  will  reduce  those  who  prac- 
tice them  to  "a  mere  animal  existence"  probably  attaches  no 
definite  meaning  to  such  phrases  as,  "It  is  not  restriction,  it  is 
freedom  that  labor  needs?"  "  Throw  open  natural  opportunities." 
' '  Put  all  men  on  equal  footing  in  regard  to  natural  bounties  by 
taxing  to  the  fullest  extent  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  commu- 
nity that  fund  which  has  been, created  by  the  whole  community." 
And  so  on  for  several  columns.  May  I  ask,  "What  fund?  and  why 
tax  it  at  all?  How  can  taxing  a  fund  created  by  the  whole  commu- 
nity be  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  community?  All  that  magnil- 
oquence reminds  us  of  the  "  red-faced  man  "  described  by  Dickens, 
who  used  to  stun  the  company  with  gong-phrases  that  might  mean 
anything  or  nothing.  "  What's  freedom?"  said  the  red-faced  man, 
"  Not  a  standing  army.  What's  a  standing  army?  Not  freedom. 
What's  general  happiness?  Not  universal  misery.  Liberty  aint 
the  window  tax,  is  it?  Society  is  bending  beneath  the  yoke  of  an 
insolent  and  factious  oligarchy;  bowed  down  by  the  domination  of 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  247 

cruel  laws;  groaning  beneath  tyranny  and  oppression  on  every 
hand,  at  every  side,  and  in  every  corner." 

The  man  vi^ho  thinks  that  there  is  a  "sole  cause"  for 
all  the  poverty,  vice,  misery,  errors  and  mistakes  that  abound 
in  society,  may  call  himself  an  "economist,"  and  a  "student 
of  natural  law,"  but  he  has  not  been  much  of  a  "student" 
if  he  has  not  learned  that  poverty  occasioned  by  drunken- 
ness, gambling,  or  even  by  business  imprudence,  is  not  to 
be  removed  by  levying  a  tax  on  land.  It  is  quite  in  harmony  with 
"natural  law,"  that  such  an  "  economist  "  should  hug  the  delusion 
that  "nothing  short  of  rebuilding  our  whole  social  structure  will 
be  of  any  real. or  lasting  benefit  to  the  masses."  Why  so?  Is  there 
any  need  for  such  a  wholesale  change?  "Nothing  will  ever  cure 
that  smoky  chimney,"  said  the  old  lady,  " except  rebuilding  the 
whole  house."  She  had  studied  just  enough  "natural  law  "  not  to 
know  that  rebuilding  the  chimney  might  answer  every  purpose. 
The  rebuilding  of  "our  whole  social  structure"  would  be  the  most 
tremendous  feat  of  engineering  ever  done  by  mortal  man  since  he 
attempted  to  scale  heaven  from  the  tall  towers  of  Babel;  yet  there 
are  architects  in  every  town  who  can  furnish  in  a  moment's  notice 
the  plans  and  specifications  by  which  the  rebuilding  may  be  easily 
and  successfully  done.  And  the  world  is  distracted  by  their  con- 
fusion of  tongues. 

Familiar  and  friendly  as  the  clown  in  the  circus,  our  old  ac- 
quaintance the  "iron  law  of  wages  "  steps  into  the  arena  and  says, 
"  Here  we  are  again,"  Close  behind  him  follows  the  ancient  antith- 
esis known  as  ' '  the  millionaire  and  tramp,  the  one  the  comple- 
ment of  the  other."  Those  veteran  bits  of  rhetoric  have  done  good 
service;  they  have  earned  retirement  and  a  pension.  Let  them  go. 
The  tramp  is  not  the  complement  of  the  millionaire  nor  the  million- 
aire of  the  tramp.  They  are  distinct  social  phenomena,  the  one 
independent  of  the  other,  the  tramp  a  little  more  independent 
sometimes  than  the  millionaire.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  maudlin 
sorrow  and  stumpy  pathos  wasted  upon  one  specimen  of  the  tramp, 
and  much  undeserved  reproach  upon  the  other.  Rarely  is  the 
tramp  a  sign  of  want,  or  even  of  a  scarcity  of  work.  As  a  pictur- 
esque victim  of  social  oppression  he  is  a  healthy,  rollicking  fraud. 
The  stout  young  fellow  who  goes  on  tramp  for  the  gypsy  fun  of  it, 
and  because  he  would  rather  beg  than  work  is  a  despicable  creature 
who  ought  to  be  kept  on  the  stone  pile;  but  the  laborer  who 
prefers  to  walk  from  one  part  of  the  country  to  another,  rather  than 


248  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

ride,  may  be  as  respectable  as  the  man  in  the  palace-car. 
Neither  the  one  tramp  nor  the  other  is  chargeable  to  the  million- 
aire. In  this  country  the  tramp  i-;  not  the  product  of  poverty  but 
of  riches.  It  is  not  scarcity  but  abundance  that  causes  the  tramp 
to  blossom  in  the  United  States.  The  fact  that  a  man  can  get  "  a 
meal's  vittles"  for  nothing,  almost  anywhere  in  America  has 
developed  that  contemptible  jolly  mendicant  known  as  the  tramp. 
As  a  political  argument  he  is  an  impostor. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  "student  of  natural  law"  utters  a 
contradiction  when  he  says  in  one  paragraph  that  the  millionaire 
and  the  tramp  "  are  but  creatures  of  the  same  natural  forces;"  and 
then  tells  us  in  another  paragraph  that  "nature  is  not  concerned 
with  the  making  of  millionaires  and  paupers  anymore  than  with 
the  making  of  Jews  and  Catholics."  I  think  they  are  all  the  pro- 
ducts of  artificial  forces  ;  although,  as  to  the  tramp,  nature 
has  had  a  good  deal  to  do  with  producing  him.  Any  man  who  has 
had  much  acquaintance  with  nature  in  the  woods  and  fields  knows 
the  artful  way  by  which  she  seduces  boys  from  the  schoolhouse 
and  men  from  the  shop.  The  man  who  has  never  been  a  tramp; 
I  don't  mean  a  mendicant,  but  the  tramp  who  pays  his  way;  the 
man  who  has  never  been  a  tramp  knows  not  what  luxury  is.  He 
has  never  quaffed  the  wine  of  life  from  the  chalice  of  the  Gods. 
He  has  never  felt  the  holy  spirit  pouring  down  upon  him  from  the 
sun.  Health  glows  in  the  brown  face  of  the  tramp,  and  nature 
makes  for  him  a  pic-nic  and  a  holiday.  Do  you  like  pictures? 
Tramp  through  Old  England  in  the  spring,  or  New  England 
in  the  fall,  and  roll  past  you  with  your  own  feet  a  landscape  of  20, 
30,  40  miles  a  day.  How  the  glories  of  the  Louvre  and  the  Vatican 
pale  before  the  groupings  and  the  colorings  you  will  see.  In  his 
gilt-edged  poetry  the  millionaire  reads  about  "the  music  of  the 
spheres,"  but  the  tramp  actually  hears  it  in  that  symphony  of 
praise  wherein  all  the  harmonies  of  nature  sing  together.  He 
drinks  a  gallon  of  air  at  a  draught,  and  consumption  and  dyspepsia 
know  him  not.  A  pleasant  stroll  that  I  can  recommend  for  anybody 
needmg  a  tonic  is  a  twenty  mile-a-day  walk  across  the  "pleasant 
land  of  France,"  say  from  Dieppe,  straight  away  to  Strasburg. 
Let  us  not  waste  any  more  tears  on  the  tramp,  nor  any  more 
cant. 

And  this  reminds  me  of  "  The  iron  law  of  wages,"  which  has 
been  imported  into  this  debate.  It  gives  to  the  argument  a  learned 
look,    as  cap  and  gown  give  an  air  of  scholarship  to  an  Oxford 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  249 

student.  ' '  The  iron  law  of  wages  "  is  an  old  myth  which  used  to 
vex  and  puzzle  me,  but  like  some  other  ghosts  it  fled  when  I  chal- 
lenged it.  I  then  discovered  that  it  was  unreal,  like  "  The  stuff 
that  dreams  are  made  of."  It  has  no  more  substance  than  the 
wooden  rule  of  three,  or  the  leather  law  of  interest.  If  a  figure  of 
speech  is  needed  let  us  call  the  law  of  wages  india-rubber,  which 
it  resembles.  It  is  elastic;  it  swells  and  shrinks,  and  stretches  and 
bends  according  to  the  pressure  and  resistance  of  the  time.  It 
changes  according  to  the  "conditions."  Time,  place,  and  circum- 
stance; crops,  climate,  capital;  product,  strength,  skill,  character, 
and  a  thousand  other  forces  control  and  modify  the  law  of  wages, 
if  there  is  any  law  of  wages  other  than  the  law  of  price  for  gro- 
ceries, the  law  of  getting  the  most  sugar  and  the  most  labor  for  the 
least  money? 

I  once  held  the  position  of  deputy  bricklayer.  I  carried  the 
bricks  up  in  a  hod,  while  my  principal  set  them  in  the  wall.  He 
was  a  labor-orator  and  a  good  one.  Did  you  ever  hear  a  sailor  box 
the  compass?  Well,  that's  the  way  my  principal  used  to  rattle  off 
the  jargon  of  the  "  dismal  science."  The  pathetic  way  in  which  he 
would  explain  the  ' '  iron  law  of  wages, "  used  to  make  us  all  so 
thirsty  from  shedding  tears,  that  we  had  to  call  for  beer.  One  day 
we  had  this  dialogue: 

"Jem,"  I  said,  "what  is  the  iron  law  of  wages?" 

"  O,  Its  the  law  which  allows  a  working  man  just  wages 
enough  to  purchase  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  keep  his  muscles  in 
working  order." 

' '  Does  it  cost  any  more  to  keep  your  muscles  in  working  order 
than  mine? " 

"No." 

' '  Then  how  comes  it  that  you  get  three  dollars  a  day,  and  I 
only  get  a  dollar  and  a  quarter?  " 

"Well,  of  course,  you  know,  skilled  labor  is  more  valuable 
than  unskilled  labor  in  the  market." 

"  Then  the  value  of  the  article  in  the  market  has  something  to 
do  with  the  price  of  it?  " 

"Certainly." 

"  And  there  is  no  iron  law?  " 

"Yes,  there  is;  for  the  lowest  forms  of  labor,  but  not  for  the 
higher."  ' 

' '  This, "  I  said,  ' '  amounts  to  a  confession  that  there  is  no  "  iron 
law  of  wages." 


250  WHEELBARROW. 

Mr.  L.  hopes  and  expects  too  much  from  the  land  scheme  of 
Henry  George.  That  scheme  was  lifted  into  popularity  by 
the  eloquence  of  its  advocate  as  much  as  by  its  own  merits, 
and  in  spite  of  its  mistakes.  The  moral  defect  of  it  is 
that  it  makes  taxation  a  principle.  It  elevates  taxes  to  the 
rank  of  blessings.  Taxes  always  deprive  society  of  some  com- 
forts; they  never  can  increase  its  wealth,  any  more  than  levy- 
ing measles  upon  a  special  few  can  increase  the  health  of  all.  The 
paradox  is  visible  in  Mr.  L.'s  proposal  to  abolish  poverty 
"by  abolishing  all  taxation  upon  the  products  of  labor,  and  putting 
it  upon  land  values,  taxing  them  to  the  last  penny."  What  are 
land  values  but  the  "  products  of  labor!"  And  why  confiscate  land 
values  "to  the  last  penny?"  The  only  revenue  that  any  govern- 
ment can  obtain  by  taxing  land  values  must  come  from  the  values 
which  are  the  product  of  labor.  The  speculative  land  value  of  a 
vacant  lot,  the  anticipated  profits  of  an  uncultivated  ' '  quarter  sec- 
tion," will  yield  nothing  to  the  tax-gatherer,  if  assessed  to  the  "  last 
penny  "  of  its  prospective  worth.  In  this  case  the  land  and  the  lot 
will  simply  be  forfeited  by  the  owner  to  the  State,  and  if  conferred 
upon  a  new  owner  they  will  not  yield  the  first  penny  in  taxes  or  in 
profits  until  they  have  been  made  productive  by  the  magic  touch 
of  labor.  There  is  much  in  Mr.  George's  land  scheme  that  ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  correct,  and  some  of  it  I  advocated  in  a  crude 
way  before  Mr.  George  was  known  as  an  author.  I  think  there  is 
a  good  deal  of  social  relief  in  the  principle  of  the  single  tax  on 
land,  as  being  the  least  impediment  to  labor;  but  I  do  not  see  how 
that  relief  can  ever  be  greater  than  the  sum  total  of  the  taxes  re- 
quired for  the  strict  necessities  of  government.  Mr.  George  is  not 
to  be  held  responsible  for  the  views  of  his  disciples,  but  many  of 
them  believe  that  under  his  plan  every  man  who  owns  lands  and 
lots  is  to  be  fined  for  the  offense  "to  the  last  penny"  of  their 
value. 

The  personal  questions  addressed  to  me  in  Mr.  L.'s  last  par- 
agraph must  be  answered.  First.  "  Does  Wheelbarrow  go  down  be- 
low the  surface  and  wrestle  with  evil  in  the  place  of  its  origin?" 
To  that  I  answer,  yes;  as  well  as  I  can;  but  I  see  a  thousand  ori- 
gins of  evil,  and  to  the  best  of  my  ability  I  wrestle  with  them  all. 
I  give  such  help  as  I  can  to  every  reformer,  and  to  every  reform. 
I  complain  that  progress  is  retarded  because  reformers  will  not  as- 
sist each  other.  "  A  single  tax  on  land  is  the  only  way  to  relieve 
poverty,"  says  one.     "Wrong,"  says  another,    "State  Socialism  is 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION. 


251 


the  only  cure  for  poverty."  "  Both  wrong,"  says  a  third,  "  Money 
reform  is  the  one  thing  needful."  "All  wrong,"  says  a  fourth, 
"Prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  will  remove  all  poverty,"  and  so 
on,  until  the  relief  of  individual  misery  is  looked  upon  as  very  un- 
professional in  a  wholesale  reformer.  Whenever  I  see  anything 
in  any  man's  plan  that  I  think  will  remove  evil  either  by  wholesale 
or  by  retail,  I  am  his  disciple. 

Second.  ' '  Does  Wheelbarrow  intend  to  give  labor  back  the  right 
to  the  use  of  the  earth?"  To  that  I  answer,  yes;  and  when  labor  uses 
the  earth,  I  would  not  tax  its  product  as  a  punishment  for  using  it. 


■dS  17  BR  SIT  7] 


252  WHEELBARROW. 


IS  THE  SINGLE  TAX  THE  SOLE  CURE  ? 

REPLY  TO  MR     S.  L. 

May  I  offer  a  few  words  in  reply  to  Mr.  L's  latest  criticism? 
He  says  that  he  can  give  "many  instances  where  economy  has  had 
the  effect  of  reducing  wages,"  and  he  hopes  that,  'having  demon- 
strated this,"  I  will  treat  his  doctrine  courteously.  He  demonstrates 
nothing.  He  simply  makes  two  assertions,  without  attempting  to 
support  them  by  any  evidence  whatever.  The  first  is,  that  the 
wages  of  cigar-makers  have  been  lowered  by  "economical  Bohemian 
workmen";  and  the  second  is,  that  the  wages  of  Pennsylvania  miners 
have  been  lowered  by  "frugal  and  economical  men  from  Italy  and 
Hungary."  It  is  nut  necessary  to  dispute  these  assertions  because 
the  point  in  controversy  here  is  not  whether  the  wages  of  miners  and 
cigar-makers  have  been  reduced,  nor  whether  it  has  been  reduced  by 
'  frugal  and  economical"  Bohemians,  Italians,  and  Hungarians,  but 
whether  the  reduction  is  caused  by  their  economy  and  frugality.  It 
is  quite  impossible  that  the  frugality  and  economy  of  workingmen 
can  have  the  effect  of  lowering  their  wages.  If  such  a  result  were 
possible,  all  the  reasons  that  regulate  wages  would  be  reversed,  and 
economic  science  would  stand  on  an  immortal  foundation.  For  cen- 
turies, there  have  been  "frugal  and  economical"  men  in  every  trade 
and  calling.  If  their  prudence  lowered  the  wages  of  their  brother 
craftsmen  and  themselves,  wages  would  have  fallen  long  ago  to  the 
minimum  necessary  for  existence. 

Mr.  L.  repeats  much  of  his  former  argument;  and  my  answer  to 
that  will  apply  to  the  repetitions  also.  I  will  notice  a  few  of  his  later 
statements.  He  admits  that  in  his  former  article  he  misquoted  Col. 
Ingersoll  but  the  reason  was  that  he  was  a  little  careless,  and  'quoted 
from  memory."  He  now  gives  us  the  quotation  as  amended, 
being  careful  at  the  same  time  to  shelter  himself  behind  the  Col- 
onel's back.  He  adopts  the  easy  stratagem  of  weak  disputants  and 
overwhelms  his  adversary  by  taunting  him  with  a  sentiment  from  the 
writings  of  some  great  or  famous  man.  A  friend  of  mine,  who 
worked  with  me  on  the  same  job,  used  to  floor  me  in  debate  by  the 
following  formula;     "Oh,  you  differ  with  Henry  Clay,  do  you?     Bad 


J  HE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  253 

for  Henry  Clay."  In  like  manner  Mr.  L.  tries  to  be  sarcastic  by 
showing  "how  a  great  lawyer,  and  a  man  of  rare  accomplishments  is 
liable  to  lose  his  reputation  as  a  scholar  when  confronted  by  'Wheel- 
barrow's' school  of  political  economy."  In  other  words,  "V'ou  differ 
with  Ingersoll,  do  you?  Bad  for  Ingersoll"  The  sneer  is  wasted 
upon  me.     I  have  no  "school"  of  political  economy. 

I  admit  that  Col.  Ingersoll  is  a  man  of  rare  accomplishments,  but 
nobody  has  ever  accused  him  of  being  a  great  lawyer,  although  every- 
body confesses  that  he  is  a  brilliant  advocate.  He  is  an  ornamented 
soda-fountain,  gushing,  frothy,  and  sweet.  His  "reputation  as  a 
scholar"  is  not  heavy  enough  to  hujft  him,  while  his  political  economy 
is  narrow  and  illiberal.  Last  summer  he  proclaimed  that  the  true 
policy  of  a  nation  is  to  find  out  what  economic  scheme  will  injure 
another  nation  and  then  adopt  it.  His  code  of  professional  ethics  as 
explained  by  himself,  shocks  the  moral  sense.  It  is  beautifully  wicked. 
However,  I  have  no  controversy  with  Col.  Ingersoll.  I  mentioned 
him  incidentally  because  Mr.  L.  quoted  him  as  having  said  that 
"The  bank  book  of  a  mechanic  is  a  certificate  that  wages  are  too 
high.'"'  This  appeared  so  extravagantly  foolish  that  I  thought  there 
must  have  been  a  mistake  made  by  Mr.  L.  in  the  quotation.  He 
now  admits  that  there  was  a  mistake,  and  that  Col.  Ingersoll  did  not 
say  what  Mr.  L.  "quoting  from  memory"  thought  he  said.  Does  Mr. 
L.,  having  found  out  that  Col.  Ingersoll  did  not  say  it,  still  think  it 
"an  indisputable  economic  truth"? 

Still  sarcastic,  Mr.  L.  sneers  at  me  for  ''throwing  chunks  of  wis- 
dom at  the  head  of  the  laborer  by  preaching  temperance,  frugality, 
and  self-denial,  by  telling  him  to  be  good,  virtuous,  and  economical  " 
I  fear  there  is  good  reason  in  the  sneer,  and  that  there  is  much 
waste  of  work  in  throwing  chunks  of  wisdom  at  the  laborer;  but  after 
all,  it  is  better  than  throwing  chunks  of  unwisdom  at  him,  by  preach- 
ing that  the  virtues  lower  wages,  and  that  all  the  ills  that  he  is  heir 
to,  can  be  cured  by  the  magic  of  a  single  tax  on  land. 

Mr.  L.  quotes  from  Henry  George's  Standard,  a  catalogue  of 
impossible  blessings  that  will  come  to  society  by  taxing  land-values 
"to  their y«//rt;«fKw^,"  and  then  reproaches  me  as  follows:  "This 
simple  just  but  radical  reform,  "Wheelbarrow  terms  'the  most  tre- 
mendous feat  of  engineering  ever  done  by  mortal.'"  I  fear  Mr.  L. 
is  again  "quoting  from  memory,"  because  my  remark  was  directed 
not  at  any  plans  proposed  by  Mr.  George,  but  at  the  alarming  deci- 
sion of  Mr.  L.,  who,  for  the  moment  had  let  the  land-tax  go,  and 
said  that  "nothing  short  of  rebuilding  our  whole  social    structure  will 


254  WHEELBARROW. 

be  of  any  real  or  lasting  benefit  to  the  masses."  Considering  the 
many  thousands  of  years  it  has  taken  to  build  our  social  structure  up 
to  its  present  greatness,  I  thought  that  the  taking  of  it  all  apart  again 
and  "rebuilding"  it,  would  be  a  most  tremendous  feat  of  engineer- 
ing. I  think  so  still,  although  no  doubt,  there  are  men  in  New  York 
ready  to  "put  in  a  bid"  for  the  job 

The  quotation  from  Henry  George  about  "taxing  land- values  to 
their  full  amount,"  is  followed  by  another,  from  Herbert  Spencer, 
beginning,  "Such  a  doctrine  is  consistent,  etc.,"  insinuating,  of 
course,  the  doctrine  just  previously  quoted  from  Henry  George.  I 
think  the  quotation  from  Herbert  Spencer  is  worthless  in  this  debate, 
because  Mr.  L.  wrenched  its  head  off  before  he  brought  it  in.  The 
doctrine  that  Spencer  was  referring  to,  was  not  given.  Separated 
from  the  context,  which  would  have  explained  it,  the  beheaded  quo- 
tation is  tacked  on  the  doctrine  of  Henry  George,  concerning  the 
taxation  of  land-values  to  their  full  amount.  This  is  hardly  fair  to 
me.  In  the  language  of  honest  lago,  "I  like  not  that."  I  think  the 
"doctrine"  that  Herbert  Spencer  was  talking  about  should  not  have 
been  suppressed  and  another  one  substituted  for  it,  as  little  Buttercup 
mixed  up  those  children  in  the  play. 

Mr.  L.  kindly  tries  to  explain  to  me  the  difference  between  taxing 
land,  and  taxing  land-values.  He  clears  up  the  matter  in  this  way: 
"Land-values  are  not  the  product  of  human  exertions;  they  are  not  a 
product  at  all,  but  simply  a  value  that  attaches  to  land  by  the  growth 
of  a  community.  The  taxing  of  this  fund  made  by  all  for  the  use  of 
all  would  not  be  a  tax  at  all,  but  in  the  correct  sense  of  the  term 
would  simply  be  rent."  This  is  like  unravehng  a  tangle  by  tying  a 
few  more  double  knots  in  it.  The  explanations  are  contradictory. 
According  to  Mr  L. ,  land  values  are  produced  by  the  "growth  of  a 
community,"  and  yet,  he  says,  "they  are  not  a  product  at  all."  A 
communityis  merely  a  collection  of  human  beings  and  all  values 
made  by  the  growth  of  a  community  are  due  to  human  exertions,  yet, 
he  says,  "Land- values  are  not  the  product  of  human  exertions  "  If 
land-values  are  not  a  product  at  all,  they  are  nothing  at  all,  and  in 
taxing  them  nothing  is  taxed.  Land-values  are  incorporeal.  They 
are  mere  qualities,  as  intangible  as  black,  yellow,  wet,  or  dry. 
Human  laws  have  no  jurisdiction  over  land-values  separate  from  the 
land,  because  human  laws  cannot  bring  land-values  under  forcible 
subjection.  If  the  taxes  on  land-values  are  not  paid,  the  land  itself 
is  arrested  and  sold,  in  satisfaction  of  the  debt. 

Mr.  L.  is  himself  drawn  into  the  whirlpool  of  his  own  logic.   He 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  255 

spins  round  and  round  until  different  objects  appear  all  alike  to  him. 
Land-values,  which  are  "not  ^. product  at  all,"  become  a  ^'futtd  made 
by  all  for  the  use  of  all,"  and  at  last  the  tax  upon  this  "fund"  merges 
into  ''''rent  '  In  saying  this,  I  do  not  intend  the  slightest  reflection 
upon  Mr,  L's  logical  ability.  I  think  the  result  was  inevitable.  The 
very  moment  we  subject  incorporeal  "values"  to  the  process  of  taxa- 
tion, or  to  the  burdens  known  as  rent,  we  are  compelled  to  attach 
them  to  some  substantial  reality  upon  which  the  penalties  of  the  law 
may  operate.  All  taxes  are  nominally  upon  values,  but  in  reality 
they  are  upon  things.  When  the  assessor  came  round  last  spring,  he 
asked  me  this  question,  "Have  you  a  watch?"  "Yes!"  "What's  the 
value  of  it?"  "Twenty  dollars."  And  he  made  the  proper  entry  in 
his  book.  It  looks  like  a  distinction  without  a  difference,  when  I  am 
told  that  the  "value"  of  the  watch  was  taxed,  and  not  the  watch 
itself. 

Mr  L.  brings  his  argument  to  a  provoking  anti-climax  in  the 
last  sentence  of  his  article,  where  he  affirms  that  "it  is  as  true  to-day 
as  it  was  a  hundred  years  ago  when  the  French  Assembly  declared 
that  'ignorance,  contempt,  and  neglect  of  human  rights  is  the  sole 
cause  of  public  misfortune.' "  I  suspect  that  this  quotation  is  also 
made  "from  memory,"  although  the  French  National  Assem.bly  said 
many  things  even  more  absurd  than  that,  though  not  quite  so  ungram- 
matical.  "Ignorance,"  "Contempt,"  and  "Neglect,"  are  three 
causes,  and  as  neither  of  them  can  therefore  be  the  sole  cause,  there 
may  be  a  mistake  in  the  quotation,  especially  as  none  of  those  three 
causes  is  the  sole  cause,  according  to  Mr.  L.  He  said  in  his  former 
article  that  land  monopoly  is  the  sole  cause,  and  taxing  land-values  to 
the  last  penny  the  "only  remedy."  After  putting  me  to  the  trouble 
of  showing  that  there  is  no  sole  cause  for  public  misfortune,  but  that 
there  are  many  causes  for  it;  and  after  disputing  with  me  down  to  the 
very  last  sentence  in  his  second  article,  he  there  abandons  his  own 
sole  cause,  and  adopts  the  three  different  sole  causes  which  he  says 
were  declared  by  the  French  National  Assembly  a  hundred  years 
ago. 

Mr.  L.  says  that  he  has  no  "personal  controversy"  with  me.  I 
have  none  with  him;  but  as  I  believe  him  to  be  a  man  who  sincerely 
desires  the  reformation  of  our  social  system,  I  have  a  personal  appeal 
to  make  to  him.  I  implore  him  to  abandon  the  "sole  cause"  theory, 
and  the  "only  remedy"  prescription  A  man  of  influence  and  ability 
may  do  great  injury  to  the  workingmen  by  telling  them  that  any 
specific  plan  of  reform  must    ^^ precede  all   others."       In    the    great 


256  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

scheme  of  human  progress  all  the  moral  forces  work  in  harmony 
together.  Not  any  one  of  them  has  precedence  over  another! 
There  is  no  jealousy  amongst  them,  no  pushing  of  each  other  out  of 
the  way.  A  single  wrong  fears  nothing  from  a  thousand  rights  dis- 
puting among  themselves  over  questions  of  precedence. 


WHO  MAKES  THE   "  LAND-VALUE  "  OF  A   FARM? 

In  The  Open  Court  for  Feb.  28th,  I  am  honored  by  criticisms 
from  three  advocates  of  Mr.  George's  plan  of  taxation.  Those 
criticisms  are  evidently  written  by  men  competent  to  defend  their 
own  position,  and  attack  mine.  They  have  the  advantage  of  me,  for 
I  have  not  their  ability  to  analyze  and  compare  the  abstract  properties 
of  things.  I  cannot  separate  the  shadow  of  a  tree  from  the  tree 
itself,  nor  the  value  of  land  from  the  land. 

My  critics  complain  that  I  do  not  correctly  state  Mr.  George's 
doctrine;  and  they  kindly  advise  me  to  read  him  again.  Well,  I  will 
if  they  will,  Mr.  Williamson  says  that  Mr.  George's  position  is  that 
"  almost  all  the  value  of  land  comes  from  the  growth  and  labor  of  the 
community,  and  not  from  the  individual  who  legally  owns  the  land;  " 
while  his  brother  critic,  Mr.  Stephenson,  says  the  strongest  claim  of 
Mr.  George  is  that  "  the  value  of  land  is  entirely  due  to  the  labor  of 
the  whole  community.  "  I  have  placed  "  almost  "  and  "  entirely  "  in 
italics  for  easier  comparison.  Which  is  Mr.  George's  word?  Some- 
body has  made  a  mistake  as  to  his  position  here.  Either  Mr.  Wil- 
liamson or  Mr.  Stephenson  ought  to  read  Mr.  George's  works  again. 

The  variance  above  noticed  is  of  no  importance  to  the  main  argu- 
ment if  both  statements  are  erroneous,  as  T  think  they  are.  I  do  not 
know  how  to  dissect  the  doctrine  based  upon  them,  but  I  do  know 
how  to  analyze  a  farm,  because  I  have  seen  farms  made,  and  have 
helped  to  make  them.     Here  is  the  process  used  in  Illinois. 

In  the  first  place  the  virgin  soil  was  communistic  property;  it  be- 
longed to  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  it  was  expressively 
described  as  "Government"  land.  The  experience  of  my  old 
acquaintance,  Thomas  Clark,  will  illustrate  the  subject  like  a  book. 
Having  selected  a  quarter  section  of  land  in  Boone  County  for  his 
future  home;  Tom  Clark  was  immediately  confronted  by  Mr.  George's 
law.  The  government  said  to  him:  "  This  land  is  the  common 
property  of  all  the  people,  and  before  you  can  have  it,  you  must  pay 
to  the  people  the  land- value  of  that  quarter  section.      This  is  fixed  at 


THE  SINGLE   TAX  QUESTION.  257 

a  dollar  and  a  quarter  an  acre.  "  Tom  paid  the  money  and  took  the 
land.  Then  he  broke  forty  acres  at  a  cost  of  three  dollars  an  acre. 
His  quarter  section  was  now  worth  $320  in  visible  value.  Next  he 
built  a  house  and  barn  upon  the  land,  and  fenced  the  forty  acres  with 
rails.  By  this  time  his  plantation  in  the  rough  was  worth  about  $500. 
How  much  of  that  value  was  due  to  the  labor  of  the  "  community"  ? 
Absolutely  none  of  it;  and  yet  this  is  the  way  "land-values"  were 
made  in  Illinois.  The  settler  who  furnished  all  the  labor,  and  all  the 
capital,  and  made  all  the  value  the  land  possesses,  is  coolly  described 
by  Mr,  Stephenson  as  the  "  alleged  "  owner  of  the  land.  He  is  also 
the  "alleged"  owner  of  the  "alleged"  fence,  and  the  "alleged" 
house  and  barn. 

In  the  wilderness  of  occult  economics  I  can  easily  lose  my  way, 
but  I  get  along  fairly  well  by  the  aid  of  an  object  lesson  so  large  and 
palpable  as  a  farm.  I  ask  my  critics  how  they  will  apply  Mr. 
George's  doctrine  of  taxation  to  the  farm  which  I  have  just  described. 
By  much  wear  of  muscle  and  sweat  of  brow,  Tom  Clark  has  brought 
the  whole  quarter  section  under  cultivation,  and  there  is  an  orchard 
in  one  corner  of  it.  Now  which  of  the  ingredients  of  this  farm  shall 
bear  the  single  tax?  Is  it  the  breaking  of  the  wild  sod?  Is  it  the 
fence,  the  barn,  or  the  apple  trees?  This  is  a  fair  question,  and  ought 
to  be  fairly  answered.  It  is  never  answered.  It  is  evaded  thus: 
"  We  do  not  propose  to  tax  any  of  these  improvements  nor  the  land 
itself;  we  only  propose  to  tax  the  land-value  of  the  whole  farm.  " 

In  that  evasion  the  single  tax  on  values'  theory  vanishes  "  like 
the  feverish  dream  of  a  summer's  night.  "  The  land  value  of  that 
farm  separate  from  the  improvements,  is  nothing.  I  have  Mr.  George 
for  that.  In  "  Protection  and  Free  Trade.  "  page  291,  he  says, 
"  Land  in  itself  has  no  value.  Value  rises  only  from  human  labor." 
If  so,  we  tax  human  labor  when  we  tax  land-values.  Whose  labor 
made  the  land-value  of  that  farm?  Was  it  the  labor  of  the  man  who 
plowed  the  land,  split  the  rails,  built  the  house,  and  planted  the 
apple  trees,  or  was  it  the  labor  of  the  "  Community?  "  The  commu- 
nity did  nothing;  and  besides,  it  had  sold  its  communal  right  in  the 
land  for  a  dollar  and  a  quarter  an  acre. 

I  repeat  that  Mr.  George  loses  sight  of  his  own  doctrine  that  land 
of  itself  has  no  value,  when  he  says,  page  302:  "  Now  it  is  evident 
that  in  order  to  take  for  the  use  of  the  community,  the  whole  income 
arising  from  land,  it  is  only  necessary  to  abolish  one  after  another,  all 
other  taxes  now  levied,  and  to  increase  the  tax  on  land-values  until  it 
reaches  as  near  as  may  be  the /«// annual  value  of  the  land.  "     Now 


258  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

if  the  government  takes  from  Clark  the  "  full  annual  value"  and  "  the 
whole  income"  of  his  farm,  whether  by  tax,  rent,  or  confiscation,  it 
practically  takes  the  whole  farm  and  all  the  product  of  his  life-time 
industry. 

It  is  paltering  in  a  double  sense  to  separate  the  value  of  that 
farm  from  the  farm  itself.  It  is  pure  mystification  to  say,  ' '  We  tax 
the  flavor  of  the  apples,  but  not  the  apple  trees,  nor  the  land  on  which 
they  grow;  we  tax  the  fragrance  of  the  roses,  but  not  the  flowers  nor 
the  garden;  we  tax  the  sweetness  of  the  grapes,  but  not  the  vineyard 
nor  the  vines.  "  If  the  tax  upon  the  sweetness  of  the  grapes  is  not 
paid,  the  sweetness  is  not  levied  on,  but  the  vineyard  is  arrested  and 
sold.  In  like  manner,  when  the  tax  on  land-values  becomes  delin- 
quent, the  land  itself  is  taken.  In  the  language  of  my  critic,  Mr. 
McGill,  "  The  owner  of  the  improvements  pays  the  annual  value  of 
the  land  to  the  freeholder."  Under  Mr.  George's  system  he  would 
pay  it  to  the  municipality.  In  either  case  he  must  pay  it  or  lose  his 
improvements. 

Mr.  McGill  says  that  Mr.  George's  experiments  "are  a  plea  for 
the  application  of  the  '  Moral  Law.  '  "  I  do  not  doubt  that  Mr. 
George  and  Mr.  McGill  conscientiously  believe  that;  but  I  can  hardly 
imagine  anything  more  immoral  and  despotic  than  a  law  which  would 
attach  Mr.  George's  theory  to  the  farm  I  have  described,  and  take 
from  the  farmers  who  made  the  farm  "  the  whole  income"  of  it,  and 
its  "  full  annual  value.  "  The  farm  that  I  have  selected  is  not  an 
exceptional  instance;  it  is  a  fair  example  of  the  manner  in  which 
"  land-values"  have  been  made  in  Illinois  and  all  the  Western  States. 
If  the  answer  to  this  is  that  the  land-value  of  city  lots  is  not  made  in 
that  way,  I  reply:  Very  well;  then  let  Mr.  George  apply  his  doctrine 
where  it  fits,  and  where  the  application  of  it  can  do  no  wrong,  if  there 
is  any  such  place,  which  I  doubt. 

Mr.  Stephenson  requires  me  to  "  point  out  the  exact  place  in 
Progress  and  Poverty  where  the  millennium  is  promised  by  the  simple 
means  of  a  single  tax  on  land;"  and  also,  "where  Mr.  George 
denounces  every  progress,  under  present  circumstances,  as  driving  a 
parting  wedge  between  the  rich  and  poor.  "  I  will  cheerfully  do  so. 
Let  Mr.  Stephenson  read  pages  326  and  327,  where  Mr.  George 
describes  the  condition  of  public  happiness  which  would  result  from 
levying  a  simple  tax  on  land.  It  is  too  long  to  quote  here,  but  it 
describes  that  social  state  which  is  usually  called  the  millennium. 
"  We  should  reach  the  ideal  of  the  socialist,  "says  Mr.  George,  "  but 
not  through  government  repression." 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  259 

For  answer  to  the  second  question,  I  refer  my  critic  to  page  11, 
where,  after  confessing  the  vast  progress  made  in  "  comfort,  leisure, 
and  refinement,  "  Mr.  George  says  this:  "In  those  gains  the  lowest 
class  do  no  share.  "  Then,  further  on,  he  says,  "  The  new  forces, 
elevating  in  their  nature  though  they  be,  do  not  act  upon  the  social 
fabric  from  underneath,  but  strike  it  at  a  point  intermediate  between 
top  and  bottom.  It  is  as  though  an  immense  wedge  were  being 
forced,  not  underneath  society,  but  through  society.  " 

Personally,  I  think  there  is  much  truth  in  that  statement,  but  I 
believe  that  Mr.  George's  remedy  would  make  matters  worse  instead 
of  better.  To  levy  each  year  a  tax  upon  Clark's  farm  equal  to  the 
"full  annual  value"  of  it, — and  to  deprive  him  of  the  "whole  income" 
arising  from  the  land,  would  be  adding  another  injustice  to  the 
wrongs  which  afflict  society  now. 

Here  is  a  circular  explanation  of  Mr.  George's  doctrine  which 
mystifies  me  like  a  Greek  oracle.  Mr.  Williamson  says:  "  Now  if  you 
tax  the  value  of  land  you  are  taxing  the  labor  of  the  whole  conwiunity^ 
slightly,  and  the  natural  opportunity  and  growth  of  the  community; 
but  as  the  taxes  are  expended  on  the  community^ — for  the  growth  of 
the  community — nobody  is  injured,  and  the  groivth  pays  for  the 
growth.^* 

Isn't  that  chopping  sand?  What  is  the  use  of  taxing  the  labor  of 
the  community,  slightly,  to  expend  the  taxes  on  the  community, 
slightly?  And  how  does  the  growth  of  the  community  pay  for  the 
growth  of  the  community?  I  have  traveled  round  and  round  this 
proposition  looking  for  a  gate-way  to  its  meaning,  until  I  am  giddy. 
To  tax  the  value  of  land  belonging  to  the  whole  community  is  to  im- 
pose upon  ourselves  the  cannon  ball  torture  for  nothing.  One  of  our 
punishments  in  the  army  was  this:  A  circle  was  drawn  on  the  ground 
about  90  feet  in  diameter.  On  the  outer  edge  of  the  circle,  holes 
were  dug  about  a  yard  apart.  In  one  of  these  holes  was  a  32  pound 
cannon-ball.  The  delinquent  had  to  pick  up  this  cannon  ball  and  drop 
it  into  the  next  hole,  and  so  on,  round  and  round,  for  so  many  hours 
a  day.  This  was  done  as  punishment,  but  Mr  WilHamson  wants  to 
do  it  for  fun,  by  the  whole  community  taxing  the  labor  of  the  whole 
community;  the  taxes  to  be  expended  on  the  whole  community. 

When  Tom  Clark's  quarter-section  belonged  to  the  whole  com- 
munity it  was  never  taxed  at  all,  because  there  is  no  sense  in  a  com- 
munity levying  taxes  upon  the  values  of  its  own  land,  and  paying  the 
tax  into  its  own  treasury.     I  once  knew  a  man  who  fined  himself  a 


26o  WHEELBARROW. 

dollar  every  time  he  used  profane  language,  but  he  merely  took  it 
out  from  one  pocket  and  paid  it  into  the  other. 

If  Mr,  Williamson  means  to  say  that  taxing  the  land-values  of 
Tom  Clark's  farm  taxes  the  labor  of  the  whole  community,  I  think  he 
makes  a  mistake.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  taxation  is  levied  upon 
the  labor  of  Clark,  and  the  taxes  ought  not  to  be  "expended  on  the 
community.  " 

NATURAL    OPPORTUNITIES. 

"  "I  THINK  there  be  six  Richmonds  in  the  field."  I  have  an- 
swered five,  and  now  comes  Mr.  Doblin  with  new  arguments.  He 
charges  at  an  effigy  of  me  made  out  of  his  own  head,  as  the  school- 
boy made  the  ship  I  merely  call  upon  him  to  direct  his  lance  at 
me,  and  not  at  my  "  Counterfeit  presentment."  Mr.  Doblin  makes 
phrases,  puts  them  into  quotation  marks,  and  then  refutes  their  argu- 
ment. This  in  itself  is  innocent  enough,  but  people  who  do  not 
understand  it  may  infer  from  the  quotation  marks  that  the  phrases 
and  the  sentiments  are  mine. 

I  never  said  ' '  Morality  is  a  compound  of  foresight,  economy, 
thrift,  and  industry."  These  are  useful  ingredients  of  character,  but 
they  are  chiefly  duties  to  ourseltes.  They  are  in  the  moral  code 
indeed,  but  its  more  important  parts  prescribe  the  duties  which  we 
owe  to  others,  the  higher  obligations  of  '*  Morality." 

Mr.  Doblin  cuts,  clips,  shortens,  plaits,  and  takes  in  fold  after 
fold  of  the  spiritual  garment  called  "  morality,"  until  it  is  diminished 
to  the  stature  of  a  man  whom  he  calls  Jay  Gould.  Then  he  insin- 
uates that  "Wheelbarrow  "  did  the  tailoring,  and  that  the  diminished 
robe  exactly  fits  my  pattern  of  morality.  I  may  exclaim  with  Cassius 
in  the  play,  "You  wrong  me  every  way,  you  wrong  me  Brutus  ;"  you 
charge  to  me  a  superstructure  which  I  never  built,  for  contrasts  and 
comparisons  I  never  thought  of. 

Is  it  not  presumptuous  to  sit  in  judgment  on  our  fellow  men, 
and  tell  the  world  that  we  are  holier  than  they  ?  Is  it  not  self- 
righteous  to  contrast  the  vices  of  his  "  Jay  Gould"  with  the  shining 
virtues  of  ourselves?  Our  moraHzers  would  become  insolvent  if  that 
"awful  warning"  should  be  called  to  his  reward.  Reserves  the 
purpose  of  a  dummy  block  whereon  reformers  may  display  their 
neighbor's  fault  for  public  reprobation.  When  they  have  it  fitted  on 
the  image  to  the  worst  advantage  they  advertise  it,  and  exclaim, 
"Here  is  a  choice  article  of  social   wickedness  ;  see  how  it  fits  this 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  261 

dummy."  Not  one  of  them  will  try  it  on  himself  and  say,  *'  Behold, 
how  closely  it  fits  me."  So  handy  is  that  Wall  Street  curiosity  to 
'  point  a  moral,  and  adorn  a  tale,"  that  I  sometimes  think  the  odium 
cast  upon  him  springs  from  envy  at  his  vices  and  his  luck.  I  fear 
to  weigh  my  own  righteousness  against  the  sins  of  any  man,  lest 
when  I  gaze  into  my  looking  glass  I  see  reflected  there  the  features 
of  that  man. 

The  ironical  sentiment  about  contentment  is  put  within  quota- 
tion marks  as  if  it  came  from  me.  I  am  innocent  of  it ;  but  it  fur- 
nishes a  text  for  high  grade  moral  reprobation,  which  I  heartily 
approve.  All  I  ask  is  that  the  indignant  "  No,  sir  !"  be  addressed  to 
the  guilty  person,  and  not  to  me.  I  am  on  record  against  content- 
ment, if  by  that  is  meant  the  end  of  aspiration  for  myself,  or  the 
end  of  work  for  others.  Neither  have  I  ever  told  poverty  to  gamble 
upon  what  the  morrow  will  bring  forth.  The  odds  against  poverty 
are  too  great. 

If  I  ever  advised  poverty  to  be  thrifty  in  order  to  "  relieve  the 
hunger  of  yesterday,"  I  did  a  foolish  thing.  I  think  I  am  innocent 
of  that  also,  although  I  plead  guilty  of  advising  thrift  against  the 
hunger  of  to-morrow.  I  never  grieved  over  the  '  hunger  of  yester- 
day "  but  once,  and  that  was  when  I  was  a  little  boy.  I  was  asked 
if  I  would  have  a  bit  of  meat  pie  ;  I  said  "  No,"  when  I  meant  "  Yes," 
and  was  taken  at  my  word.  Next  day  I  was  tortured  by  the  vision 
of  that  lost  meat  pie.  Toward  night  it  occurred  to  me  that  it  was 
useless  to  weep  over  the  hunger  of  yesterday,  and  I  have  never  done 
so  since.     It  is  the  hunger  of  to-day  that  worries  me. 

I  fully  agree  wnth  .Mr.  Doblin  that  we  cannot  teach  morality  to 
dead  men.  I  think  with  him  that  as  a  "  first  condition  '  of  success 
in  teaching,  the  pupils  "  must  be  alive." 

As  to  the  "spirit  of  the  Henry  George  doctrine"  I  have  no 
quarrel  with  it ;  "  the  letter  killeth."  It  is  not  Mr.  George's  motives, 
but  his  measures  that  I  question.  I  am  as  anxious  as  he  is  to  "  open 
up  the  natural  opportunities,"  although  I  think  the  phrase  is  vague, 
uncertain,  and  misleading.  We  differ  as  to  the  means  by  which  to 
"  open  up."  Tom  Kennedy  and  I  were  shovelers  in  the  same  gang. 
We  were  working  on  a  bit  of  railroad  not  far  from  Chambly  in 
Canada,  and  lodged  in  the  house  of  a  little  Frenchman  there.  Tom 
was  an  Irishman,  who  reached  conclusions  by  the  mpst  illogical 
means.  One  night  he  woke  up  complaining  of  the  closeness  of  the 
room.  "  We  must  have  some  fresh  air,"  he  said,  "  I'll  open  up  the 
windy."     Instead  of  doing  so  in  a  Christian  manner,  he  picked  up 


262  WHEELBARROW. 

one  of  my  boots  and  flung  it  through  the  glass  into  the  street,  where 
I  found  it  in  the  morning.  Tom's  conclusions  were  all  right,  but  his 
way  of  reaching  them  was  defective.  Fresh  air  was  a  "  natural  op- 
portunity "  to  which  he  was  entitled,  but  he  had  no  right  to  obtain  it 
by  throwing  another  man's  boot  through  a  third  man's  window. 
Neither  has  Mr.  George  nor  Mr.  Doblin. 

If  I  should  ask  Mr.  Doblin  to  "  drop  his  preconceived  ideas  "  in 
favor  of  Mr.  George's  theory,  long  enough  to  study  my  objections  to 
It  he  would  rightly  consider  my  demand  unreasonable.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  the  candid  study  of  any  subject  that  a  man  should  drop 
his  preconceived  ideas  concerning  it ;  yet  Mr.  Doblin,  with  compla- 
cent self-esteem,  demands  that  I  drop  my  preconceived  ideas  of  his 
particular  faith  before  I  study  it.  This  is  a  concession  which  no  dis- 
putant has  a  right  to  ask  of  his  antagonist.  A  man  who  denied  the 
efficacy  of  prayer  was  requested  by  the  preacher  to  give  the  matter 
"  prayerful  consideration." 

My  preconceived  ideas  of  taxation  leaned  very  much  toward  the 
scheme  of  Henry  George.  I  am  dropping  some  of  them  because  the 
study  of  the  question  leads  me  to  doubt  their  wisdom  and  their  justice. 
For  instance,  in  the  case  of  Thomas  Clark,  the  farmer  whom  I  spoke 
of  lately,  I  think  that  society  has  no  right  to  confiscate  his  farm 
because  some  other  man  holds  land  for  speculative  purposes.  To  tax 
it  away  from  him  by  Mr.  George's  plan  is  to  confiscate  it. 

'' The  Rights  of  Man."  What  man?  What  are  the  rights  of 
Thomas  Clark  to  the  farm  which  he  has  literally  planted  in  the 
wilderness  ?  To  tax  the  value  of  that  farm  to  its  full  amount,  the 
whole  of  which  value  has  been  made  by  the  hard  labor  of  Clark, 
would  be  a  wrong  for  which  the  only  excuse  would  be  a  plea  of 
political  insanity. 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  AND  GEORGEISM. 

Mr.  George  made  a  blunder  by  going  to  England  and  leaving 
his  doctrine  loose  in  the  hands  of  his  disciples.  They  have  given  it 
so  many  emendations  and  explanations  that  he  will  hardly  know  it 
when  he  gets  home.  If  he  could  read  the  thirty  or  forty  defenses  of 
it  which  have  appeared  in  The  Open  Court  he  would  laugh  at  their 
paradoxical  ingenuity.  He  would  exclaim  with  that  Maryland  farm- 
er,  "Friends  of  the  single-tax  had  better  stop  explaining." 

The  most  condensed  explanation  of  the  single-tax  doctrine  is  given 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  263 

by  Mr.  Hugh  O.   Pentecost  in  The  Open  Court,  No.  85.     I  will 
first  notice  that.     He  says: 

"If  Wheelbarrow  cannot  separate  the  idea  of  *  the  value  of  land  from  the 
land,'  as  he  confisses,  he  certainly  ought  to  understand  that  one  piece  of  land  has 
more  renting  value  than  another,  and  he  ought  to  understand  so  simple  a  proposi- 
tion as  \iz.\\xi% ground-rent  arid  nothing  else  paid  inio  the  public  treasury.  That 
is  all  there  is  to  the  '  George  7heory.'  " 

Very  good!  That  simplifies  the  debate.  Mr.  Pentecost  is  of 
high  authority  as  a  commentator  on  the  gospel  according  to  George. 
H  Mr.  George  left  the  key  to  his  problem  in  the  hands  of  any  man, 
he  left  it  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Pentecost.  I  must  therefore  consider 
his  interpretation  orthodox  although  it  is  hardly  consistent  with  the 
original  text  as  written  by  Mr.  George  himself.  Mr.  Pentecost  gives 
us  a  very  narrow  definition  of  Mr.  George's  claim.  Mr.  George  ex- 
pands \\\Q.  ground-rent  project  until  it  includes  the  confiscation  of  all 
the  value  of  all  the  land.  This  is  practically  the  confiscation  of  the 
land,  and  the  communists  of  Europe  and  America  understand  it  so. 
Mr.  George  himself  understands  it  so.  In  proof  of  this  I  quote  his 
very  words,  as  I  tind  them  on  page  302  of  "Protection  or  Free  Trade." 

"  Now  it  is  evident  that,  in  order  to  take  for  the  use  of  the  community  the 
ivhole  income  aLr\%\xi%ixova.\axiA^jicst  as  effectually  as  it  could  betaken  by  for- 
mally appropriating  and  letting  oiit  the  la7id^  it  is. only  necessary  to  abolish, 
one  after  another,  all  other  taxes  now  levied,  and  to  increase  the  tax  on  land 
values  till  it  reaches,  as  near  as  may  be,  the /ull  annual  value  of  the  land,"* 

Can  confiscation  be  declared  in  plainer  words  than  those?  ,.  They 
are  copied  from  Webster's  dictionary,  where  Confiscation  is  defined 
as  "Appropriating  to  the  public  use."  Why  quibble  over  words  and 
phrases  such  as  "single  tax,"  "ground-rent,"  "land  values,"  and  similar 
labels  on  the  bottle,  when  Mr.  George  declares  that  the  remedy  in 
the  bottle  will  "take  for  the  use  of  the  community  the  whole  income 
arising  from  land,  just  as  effectually  as  it  could  be  taken  hy  formally 
approptiating  and  letting  out  the  land?"  "It  is  only  ground-rent,'' 
says  Mr.  Pentecost,  after  the  manner  of  Leroy  Carter,  a  comrade  of 
mine,  who  was  arrested  for  killing  a  pig.  "  Did  you  kill  that  pig?" 
said  the  colonel.  "No,  sir,"  said  Carter,  "I  did  not.  He  came 
smelling  around  the  tent,  so  I  just  run  my  bayonet  through  him,  and 
he — died."  It  is  only  ground-tent,  but  it  appropriates  the  land. 
We  do  not  propose  to  kill  Tom  Clark,  we  shall  only  just  playfully  run 
him  through  with  a  bayonet. 

The  popularity  of  Mr.  George's   theory  lies  in  the  extravagant 
claim  he  makes  for  its  beneficence.     I  have  been  criticised  for  saying 
*  The  italics  are  mine. 


264  WHEELBARROW. 

that  the  millennium  is  included  in  his  plan.  Let  us  examine  his 
most  recent  utterance  on  the  subject.  A  few  weeks  agfo  Mr.  George 
wrote  a  letter  to  the  Chicago  Times,  in  which  he  said  : 

"  The  single  tax  reform  is  the  most  pressing.  This  is  the  one  great  reform 
that  by  relieving  industry  of  all  burdens  and  preventing  the  monopolization  of 
the  one  element  necessary  to  all  production  and  all  life,  will  enormously  increase 
production,  will  secure  an  equitable  distribution  of  wealth,  will  solve  the  labor 
question,  which  lies  at  the  root  of  all  our  social  and  religious  difificulties,  will  make 
Christianity  possible,  will  give  the  masses  of  men  opportunity  for  more  than  a 
struggle  to  exist,  and  will  open  the  way  for  an  advance  to  a  far  higher  and  grander 
civihzation." 

If  that  is  not  the  millennium,  what  is  it?  Does  Mr.  Pentecost 
believe  that  such  tremendous  results  are  to  be  obtained  by  the  appli- 
cation to  society  of  the  insignificant  porous  plaster  which  he  calls 
ground-rent ?  Does  he  believe  that  his  fly-blister  will  draw  the  in- 
flammation from  the  body-politic,  allay  the  social  fever,  solve  the 
labor  question,  and  "  make  Christianity  possible"?  Is  not  Christi- 
anity possible  now  ?  And  does  it  not  exist  in  many  different  forms  ? 
If  the  full  promise  of  Christianity  has  not  yet  been  realized,  will  it 
come  through  the  diminutive  device  called  ground- fen  t?  The  tower- 
ing pretensions  of  Mr.  Henry  George  are  brought  by  Mr.  Pentecost 
to  an  anti-climax  when  he  declares  that  ground-rent  paid  into  the 
public  treasury  *'  is  all  there  is  to  the  George  Theory."  All  that  is 
needed  now  to   "  make   Christianity  possible  "  is  a  XxXXXe  ground-i  ent. 

Mr.  George  ridicules  the  protectionists  for  trying  to  make  people 
rich  by  taxing  them,  ye^  he  attempts  the  same  impossible  feat  in  a 
tenfold  more  difiicult  and  exaggerated  form.  He  actually  says  that 
a  single  tax  on  land  values  amounting  to  the  "  whole  incotne"  of  the 
land  and  its  "  full  annual  value  "  would  benefit  the  farmer.  This 
contradiction  is  the  illusive  creed  of  multitudes,  as  appears  from  the 
letters  in  The  Open  Court. 

Let  us  see  how  Mr,  George's  plan  would  enrich  Tom  Clark.  He 
would  be  taxed  %%  or  $10,  for  his  farm  according  to  the  Georgeian  as- 
sessor. But  some  new  comers  would  be  willing  to  pay  more  for 
God's  bounty,  and  Mr-  Clark  would  be  evicted.  Those  who  can  sep- 
arate the  land  value  from  the  land  will  perhaps  tell  him  how  he  can 
take  his  improvements  along.  You  declare  that  Tom  Clark  may  sell 
his  improvements.  You  can  even  force  him  to  sell ;  but  you  can  force 
nobody  to  buy  them. 

I  agree  that  land  values  may  be  taxed;  but  I  maintain  that  they 
cannot  be  se'zed  and  sold  in  satisfaction  of  the  taxes,  any  more  than 
a  crack  in  the  wall  of  a  house  can  be  taken  in  execution  for  the  rent. 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  265 

All  taxes  upon  land  values  are  ideal  in  their  assessment ;  they  are  ac- 
tual and  real  in  their  collection.  They  attach  to  the  realty,  the  land, 
and  if  not  paid,  the  land  itself,  and  not  the  land  value,  is  sold  by  the 
sheriff.  Therefore  all  taxes  upon  land  values  are  taxes  upon  land. 
To  assert  that  they  are  friendly  to  the  soil  itself,  is  to  repeat  in  a  new 
form  the  apology  for  the  cut- worm,  who  merely  attacks  the  wheat, 
but  is  careful  not  to  injure  the  land. 

The  State  of  New  York,  e.  g. ,  must  bear  a  very  large  burden  of  tax- 
ation, and  it  is  not  statesmanship  but  sentiment  which  proposes  to 
obtain  the  money  by  a  tax  on  land  values  irrespective  of  the  improve- 
ments on  the  land.  According  to  the  ratio  of  population,  the  State  of 
New  York  must  pay  twenty-seven  million  dollars  annually  in  taxes  to 
the  national  government  alone,  although  according  to  the  ratio  of 
wealth  the  share  of  that  State  would  greatly  exceed  that  sum.  How 
could  the  money  be  raised  by  a  tax  on  land  values  alone,  in  addition 
to  the  sum  necessary  to  defray  the  vast  expenses  of  the  State,  County 
and  Township  governments?  Men  live  in  dreamland  who  think  to 
benefit  the  New  York  farmer  by  levying  all  taxes  upon  land  values, 
and  exempting  from  taxation  all  the  personal  property  of  that  opulent 
State,  all  the  money,  bonds,  banks,  railroads,  ships,  factories,  stocks 
of  goods,  and  all  buildings  of  every  description  whatsoever.  There 
is  not  in  all  dupedom  a  more  deceitful  vision  than  that  of  a  farmer 
growing  rich  by  the  exemption  from  taxation  of  all  kinds  of  property 
except  his  own. 

I  should  like  to  continue  but  I  must  stop  here  to-day  because  it 
will  take  me  a  few  days  of  hard  study  to  answer  your  Dakota  corres- 
pondent who  can  see  no  moral  distinction  between  stealing  horses, 
and  investing  capital  in  land;  and  that  Ohio  critic  who  says  that  Mr. 
George  is  not  after  Tom  Clark,  but  his  children;  and  that  Chicago 
man  who  desires  to  encourage  Tom  Clark  in  making  improvements  on 
his  farm  by  exempting  everybody  and  everything  from  taxation  except 
land  owners  and  land  values;  and  that  Massachusetts  economist  who 
tells  us  that  the  abolition  of  poverty  is  only  a  "side  issue." 

Mr.  Pentecost  sees  no  difference  between  the  proportion  of  land 
taxation  and  Georgeism.  But  I  see  a  difference.  While  I  consider 
the  one  feasible,  I  think  that  the  latter  is  fantastical. 


:66  WHEELBARROW. 


MR.  PENTECOST  AND  GEORGEISM. 

The  Single-tax  religion,  which  is  to  "solve  the  labor  question" 
and  "make  Christianity  possible,"  has  grown  very  thin  under  the 
attenuating  advocacy  of  Mr,  Hugh  O.  Pentecost.  With  excusable 
vanity  Mr.  Pentecost  exults  because  I  paid  him  the  tribute  of  saying 
that,  *  If  Mr.  George  left  the  key  to  his  problem  in  the  hands  of  any 
man,  he  l^ft  it  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Pentecost."  I  did  say  that,  and 
when  r  said  it,  I  thought  that  Mr.  Pentecost  was  a  more  inspired 
and  more  competent  apostle  than  he  is.  I  cheerfully  withdraw  the 
opinion,  and  apologize  for  having  uttered  it.  I  think  now  that  Mr. 
•  George  put  that  key  into  his  own  pocket,  and  carried  it  away  with 
him  to  England.  Mr.  Pentecost  still  persists  in  whitthng  the  doctrine 
down  to  the  common-place  exaction  known  as  ground-rent,  imposed 
and  collected  after  the  manner  of  Chicago  in  the  case  of  the  First 
National  Bank,  and  after  the  manner  of  New  York  in  the  case  of  the 
city  docks.  How  much  has  Christianity  been  made  possible  in  New 
York  by  the  application  of  the  Henry  George  theory  to  the  city  docks? 
I  am  aware  that  Mr.  Pentecost  has  the  advantage  of  me  in  this 
discussion  because  of  his  greater  learning,  and  his  more  extensive 
acquaintance  with  the  subject.  He  is  candid  enough  to  acknowledge 
this  himself,  and  politely  says,  that  Wheelbarrow  "  does  not  know 
what  he  is  writing  about."  As  to  himself  he  frankly  says:  "There 
can  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  I  know  what  I  am  talking  about.  If 
any  one  knows  what  Georgeism  is,  I  do."  There  is  such  a  cheerful 
egotism  in  all  this,  that  I  will  not  disturb  the  complacency  of  Mr. 
Pentecost  by  any  language  of  resentment.  I  will  merely,  in  a  re- 
ligious way,  sprinkle  a  few  coals  of  fire,  or  a  few  drops  of  hot  water 
on  his  head. 

Mr. Pentecost  accuses  me  of  "lamentable  ignorance,"  but  I  will  bear 
the  reproach  with  resignation  if  he  will  only  be  civil  to  himself,  and 
continue  to  describe  himself  with  becoming  pride  as  an  "intelligent 
single  taxer."  His  opportunities  have  been  greater  than  mine,  and  I 
shall  never  be  able  to  compete  with  him  in  the  graces  of  controversy 
and  the  eloquence  of  slang.  I  will  reason  with  him  as  well  as  I  can, 
without  wishing  to  "prance  into  the  ring,"  to  "jump  on  him"  or  to 
pin  him  down."     I  will  not  call  him  a  ^'wriggler,"  nor  appeal  from  his 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  267 

"high  jinks,"  whatever  they  may  be.  In  those  prize-ring  dialectics, 
where  he  is  so  "intelligent,"  I  must  confess  to  "lamentable  igno- 
rance." That  style  of  grammar  and  diction  still  further  dilutes  the 
doctrine  which  Mr.  Pentecost,  with  sectarian  conceit,  absurdly  entitles 
"Georgeism  "  The  more  tenderly  Mr.  Pentecost  nurses  it  with 
strong  language,  the  weaker  it  grows. 

i  once  heard  a  three-thimble  artist  at  Epsom  races  rebuke  the 
by-standers  for  "wriggling"  after  the  nimble  pea  instead  of  selecting, 
in  a  straightforward  way,  the  thimble  which  concealed  it  The  re- 
proach appeared  to  me  to  be  unjust,  because  the  wriggling  eye-search 
for  the  pea  was  due  to  the  wriggling  of  the  pea  itself,  under  the  three 
thimbles  manipulated  by  the  artist.  I  am  told  that  three-card  monte 
has  the  same  peculiarities,  and  that  it  is  only  by  ingenious  mental  wrig- 
gling that  the  by-standers  can  track  the  Jack  of  Clubs,  and  '  pin  him 
down."  Now  there  are  three  thimbles  called,  respectively,  "single- 
tax."  "ground-rent,"  and  "land-confiscation."  Under  which  of  them 
is  "Georgeism"?  Mr.  Pentecost,  accomplished  in  what  he  elegantly 
calls  "illustrative  tricks"  and  "sleight-of-hand  performances,"  lifts 
up  the  "ground-rent"  thimble  and  exposes  the  pea  for  an  instant,  but 
when  the  by-stander  bets  his  money  on  it  and  lifts  the  thimble,  he 
finds  that  the  pea  has  fled.  It  is  then  under  the  "single-tax"  or  the 
"confiscation"  thimble.  The  man  who  can  follow  "Georgeism"  in 
its  wriggling  journey  under  the  three  thimbles,  must  be  himself  a 
"wriggler"  equal  in  quickness  to  the  man  who  moves   the   thimbles. 

"  Don't  be  a-frightened,  ladies  and  gentlemen,"  said  the  pop- 
merchant  at  the  picnic,  as  the  liberated  corks  flew  out  of  the  bottles 
with  a  noise  like  the  firing  of  artillery,  "don't  be  a-frightened  ;  it's 
only  ginger  beer."  "Uon't  be  a-frightened,"  says  Mr.  Pentecost,  "it 
isn't  confiscation  ;  it's  only  ground-rent;  that's  all  there  is  to  George- 
ism "  There  is  a  melancholy  deception  here,  in  which  Mr.  Pentecost 
is  himself  deceived.  I  think  that  land  confiscation  is  "all  there  is  to 
Georgeism."  It  is  that,  or  it  is  nothing.  In  this  meaning  of 
'  Georgeism"  lies  its  popularity,  for  "appropriating"  land  by  govern- 
ment gratifies  the  landless.  It  may  be,  as  Mr.  Pentecost  says,  that 
"Wheelbarrow  does  not  understand  the  single-tax  doctrine  "  but  Mr. 
George  understands  it,  and  he  says  that  "Georgeism"  proposes  "to 
take  for  the  use  of  the  community  the  whole  income  arising  from 
land,  just  as  effectually  as  it  could  be  taken  hy  formally  appropiiating 
and  letting  out  the  land."  I  think  that  is  confiscation.  I  have  no 
patent  on  my  opinion;  I  adopted  it  from  Webster,  who,  in  defining 
the  word  "confiscation"  borrowed  from  Henry  George  the  very  Ian- 


268  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

guage  I  have  quoted  above.  In  defiance  of  the  obvious  meaning  of 
the  words,  Mr.  Pentecost  persists  in  saying  that  they  express  nothing 
but  ground-rent. 

Having  tried  to  show  wherein  the  scheme  is  confiscation,  I  will 
now  try  to  show  wherein  it  is  «c/ ground-rent.  In  doing  this,  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  "wriggle"  around  after  the  nimble  pea  in  its  tor- 
tuous windings  among  the  intricate  meanings  of  the  words  "tax"  and 
"rent."  These  words  are  used  interchangeably  by  "intelligent  single- 
taxers,"  to  confound  the  moral  distinctions  between  "rent,"  which 
government  has  no  right  to  exact,  and  "taxes"  which  government  has 
the  right  to  impose.  A  tax  is  never  levied  by  government 
upon  its  own  land;  rent  is  never  drawn  by  government  from  land 
not  its  own.  Whatever  income  is  received  by  government  from  its 
own  land  is  rent,  assessed  by  special  contract  between  the  govern- 
ment and  the  occupier  of  the  land,  as  a  tax  never  is.  A  tax  does 
not  rest  upon  any  special  contract  between  the  government  and  the 
tax  payer.  Its  rate  and  amount  are  fixed  by  the  government 
alone,  at  its  own  will.  Ground-rent  is  a  compensation  rendered  to 
the  owner  of  land  by  the  occupier  of  it;  and  no  person  other  than 
the  owner  has  any  right  to  exact  ground  rent  for  the  use  of  land. 
Before  government  can  "make  Christianity  possible  "  in  the  United 
States  by  exacting  ground-rent  from  land,  it  must  first  own  the 
land. 

Mr.  Pentecost,  rather  heedlessly  I  think,  asserts  that  the  George 
doctrine  is  already  applied  by  the  city  of  New  York  to  the  city  docks, . 
and  by  the  city  of  Chicago  to  the  First  National  Bank  of  Chicago. 
As  to  the  New  York  matter  I  am  not  informed,  but  I  know  something 
about  the  First  National  Bank  of  Chicago,  and  I  can  assure  Mr. 
Pentecost  that  the  illustration  is  a  very  unfortunate  one  for  him. 
The  city  of  Chicago  gets  ground-rent  from  the  First  National  Bank 
because  the  city  owns  the  land  on  which  the  bank  building  stands. 
This  rent  has  been  assessed  by  mutual  agreement  between  the  First 
National  Bank  and  the  city  of  Chicago.  It  is  rent  fixed  by  contract, 
and  not  a  tax  imposed  by  the  one-sided  will  of  the  city.  Time  was 
when  the  city  owned  the  bank  lot,  and  the  adjoining  lot.  It  sold  the 
adjoining  lot.  and  therefore  obtains  no  revenue  from  it  except  the 
proportion  of  taxes  levied  upon  it  in  common  with  other  lots  of  equal 
value  under  the  revenue  law.  From  the  lot  which  the  city  owns  it 
obtains  ground-rent ;  from  the  other  lot  it  obtains  taxes.  Before  it 
can  obtain  ground-rent  from  both  lots  the  city  must  own  them  both, 
and  before  it  can  own  them  both  it  must  confiscate  or   buy   that  ad- 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  269 

joining  lo^  Mr  Pentecost  sneers  at  the  danger  of  "eviction  under 
Georgeism,"  and  innocently  remarks:  "The  fear  of  eviction  was 
not  before  the  eyes  of  the  men  v^rho  built  the  massive  buildings  in 
Chicago  upon  the  city  ground-rent  plan."  True  enough!  But  why? 
Because  they  had  a  seventy  years'  lease  of  the  land.  Does  Mr.  Pen- 
tecost think,  that  men  will  put  up  "massive  buildings"  without  ample 
security  of  possession  ?  Does  he  think  that  men  would  put  up  "mas- 
sive buildings"  if  they  supposed  that  "Georgeism"  was  among  the 
possibilities  of  social  or  political  change. 

I  do  not  know  that  Mr.  Pentecost  has  ever  been  a  school-teacher 
but  I  suspect  him,  because  he  talks  like  the  fretful  schoolmaster 
under  whose  neglect  I  finished  my  education.  I  had  struggled  up 
to  the  rule  of  three,  and  half  way  through  it,  when  I  came  to  an 
"example"  which  baffled  me.  I  appealed  for  help  to  the  teacher, 
but  he  scolded  me,  and  said  that  I  was  ignorant  and  stupid,  and 
that  my  efforts  were  all  nonsense.  He  helped  me  a  little  with  his 
cane,  but  he  did  not  show  me  how  to  do  the  sum,  and  so  I  graduated 
there  and  then  right  in  the  middle  of  the  rule  of  three.  My  school  days 
ended,  and  my  child-labor  began.  I  am  still  wondering  how  to  work 
that  sum.  I  have  long  since  forgiven  my  teacher  for  not  showing 
me  how  to  do  it,  because  I  found  out  afterward  that  he  did  not 
know.  His  reproaches  were  intended  to  conceal  his  own  incapacity. 
Mr.  Pentecost  talks  exactly  like  my  poor  old  schoolmaster  when  he 
rebukes  me  thus: 

"When  Wheelbar.'ow  says  that  under  the  George  system,  the  land  itself 
and  not  the  value  of  the  land  '  would  be  sold  by  the  sheriff  to  satisfy  the  claims 
of  the  tax-collector,  he  talks  nonsense.  How  can  latrd  ivhich  is  taxed  by  the 
government  up  to  its  full  rental  v  due  have  any  selling  value.''' 

The  "nonsense"  consists  in  taxing  the  land  up  to  its  full  rental 
value;  but  before  exposing  that,  I  must  compliment  Mr.  Pentecost 
on  the  dexterity  with  which  he  conjured  the  little  pea  from  the  "rent" 
thimble  to  the  "tax"  thimble.  It  is  now  "taxes"  and  not  "ground- 
rent"  that  he  talks  about.  "How  can  land,"  he  asks,  "which  is 
taxed  by  the  government  up  to  its  full  rental  value  have  any  selling 
value?"  In  this  conundrum  the  "intelligent  single  taxer"  displays  at 
least  a  glimmer  of  genuine  intelligence.  It  appears  to  me  that  such 
land  has  no  more  selling  value  than  the  bung-hole  of  a  barrel  ;  and 
the  paradox  presented  by  the  question  stultifies  the  whole  theory  of 
Henry  George.  Land  which  is  taxed  up  to  its  full  rental  value  is  con- 
fiscated and  smitten  barren  by  the  law.  It  is  barren  to  the  owner 
because  blighted  by  taxes  equal  to  its  product.     It  is   barren   to    the 


270  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

government,  which  has  taxed  it  up  to  the  confiscation  point,  for  no 
man  will  buy  it  thus  encumbered.  When  I  pointed  out  that  anomaly, 
the  '  intelligemt  single-taxers"  told  me  that  I  did  not  know  what  I 
was  talking  about,  and  that  they  only  meant  the  rental  value  of  the 
land  independent  of  the  improvements  The  pea  wriggled  away 
again. 

The  conundrum  put  by  Mr.  Pentecost  presen-t's  the  distinction 
between  "rent"  and  "taxes."  It  is  true  that  only  the  value  ol  land 
is  taxed,  but  although  the  taxation  is  of  the  abstract,  the  collection  is 
oi  the  substance.  Government  may  tax  the  key-hole  of  a  house,,  but 
the  house  will  be  liable  for  the  tax.  So,  if  the  tax  on  the  value  of 
land  is  not  paid  the  land  is  answerable  for  the  debt.  If  because  of 
excessive  taxation,  or  for  other  reason,  the  land  has  no  selling  value, 
the  government  buys  it,  or  "bids  it  in  "  for  the  amount  of  taxes  and 
thus  becomes  the  owner  of  the  land,  as  the  United  States  of  America 
became  owner  of  the  Arlington  estate  at  Washington.  Not  so  with  de- 
linquent rent.  In  this  case  the  owner  of  the  land  resumes  possession 
of  it  in  the  last  resource  and  evicts  the  tenant  for  non-payment  of 
the  rent  agreed  upon.  Rent  is  assessed  by  contract  between  two  or 
more;  taxes,  by  the  sovereign  will  of  one. 

I  never  said  that  "under  the  George  system  Tom  Clark  would  be 
taxed  $8  or  $ro  on  his  farm."  I  was  merely  quoting  the  opinions  of 
some  of  my  critics  to  that  effect,  and  I  was  trying  to  show  how  erron- 
eous their  estimate  must  be,  and  that  if  all  the  public  burdens  be 
thrown  upon  land  values,  the  share  of  Clark  must  be  very  much 
greater  than  that  estimate.  But  what  matter  ?  The  question  of 
Clark's  proportion  is  devoured  by  the  larger  theme,  the  proposition  to 
"take  for  the  use  of  the  community"  the  whole  income  of  his  farm, 
and  in  this  way  deprive  him  of  it  altogether.  The  amount  of  Clark's 
taxes  is  a  trivial  question  in  comparison  with  the  proposal  to  confis- 
cate his  farm. 


CONFISCATION. 

The  communication  of  Mr.  Pentecost  in  No.  93  of  The  Open 
Court  is  tenderly  introduced  as  an  "Explanation."  I  call  it  a 
confession.  I  think  I  have  a  right  to  call  it  so,  because  I  con- 
ducted the  cross-examination  which  procured  it.  After  evading  me 
like  quicksilver  for  about  three  months,  Mr.  Pentecost  now  ac- 
knowledges that  my  interpretation  of  the  vanity  known  as  ' '  George- 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION  271 

ism  "  was  correct,  and  that  in  spite  of  his  taunts  and  insinuations  to 
the  contrary  I  did  "  understand  the  question,  "  and  did  know  "what 
I  was  talking  about. "  Not  often  does  a  witness  break  down  under 
cross-examination  so  completely  as  Mr.  Pentecost  has  broken  down. 
He  now  says: 

"Georgeism  does  involve  the  practical  confiscation  of  land  by  the  govern- 
ment. In /ortn  it  leaves  the  present  owner  of  land  an  owner  still;  but,  in  /act, 
the  government  becomes  the  owner.  *  *  * 

"When  a  majority  of  the  people  of  this  country  come  to  see  that  the  private 
ownership  of  land  is  a  crime  against  humanity,  as  chattel  slavery  was  a  crime 
against  the  negroes,  then  the  land  will  be  confiscated  just  as  the  slaves  were 
freed.  *  *  * 

"Wheelbarrow  seems  to  think  that  if  he  can  fix  the  charge  of  confiscation 
upon  Georgeism  he  has  dealt  it  a  heavy  blow.  On  the  contrary,  that  's  what  we 
Georgeites glory. in.  We  mean  to  utterly  destroy  the  private  ownership  of  land  by 
confiscating  ^r(7a«^-r^«^.  *  *  * 

"  Ground-rent  would  be  all  that  any  one  would  have  to  pay  to  government. 
The  land  would  all  be  confiscated— taken  away  from  the  present  owners  without 
compensation,  just  as  we  now  take  a  stolen  horse  away  from  a  horse-thief  or  away 
from  him  to  whom  the  horse-thief  sold  him." 

Considering  how  these  explanations  contradict  those  which 
Mr.  Pentecost  gave  us  in  The  Open  Court.  Nos.  85  and  gi,  there 
is  droll  comedy  in  the  question:  "  Is  there  any  possibility  of  Wheel- 
barrow's failing  to  understand  the  thing  this  time?"' 

To  that  I  answer:  How  can  I  fail  to  understand  it?  The  pur- 
pose to  confiscate  is  declared.  How  can  any  man  fail  to  understand 
the  "  Georgeites  "  when  they  say:  '  We  mean  to  utterly  destroy  the 
private  ownership  of  land  "?  A  reference  to  the  former  numbers  of 
The  Open  Court  will  show  that  I  always  understood  it  so,  and  that 
Mr.  Pentecost  did  not.  If  he  did,  he  concealed  his  understanding 
from  us  by  pretending  that  Tom  Clark  would  be  better  off  under 
"  Georgeism,  "  and  that  his  farm  would  be  burdened  with  taxes 
amounting  to  little  or  nothing.  Mr.  Pentecost  now  declares  that  the 
purpose  of  Georgeism  is  to  take  Tom's  farm  away  from  him  entirely, 
as  if  it  were  a  stolen  horse. 

I  earnestly  call  the  attention  of  Mr.  Albro  and  Mr.  Williamson, 
who  immediately  follow  Mr.  Pentecost  to  his  astonishing  confession; 
and  I  ask  them,  not  in  taunt  or  triumph,  but  as  fellow  searchers 
after  truth,  whether  it  is  not  a  waste  of  arithmetic  to  figure  up  the 
probable  amount  of  Tom  Clark's  taxes,  when  only  the  form  of  his 
farm  is  to  remain  to  him  while  the  fact  and  substance  of  it  are  to  be 
taken  away? 


272  WHEELBARROW. 

The  comparisons  of  Mr.  Pentecost  are  discordant  and  confused 
There  is  no  likeness  between  a  slave  and  a  farm,  nor  between  the 
emancipation  of  a  slave  and  the  confiscation  of  land  The  slaves 
were  not  confiscated;  they  were  freed.  It  is  true  that  Gen.  I^utler  in 
the  early  part  of  the  war  did  confiscate  some  slaves,  under  the  pre- 
varication that  they  were  "contraband  of  war  ";  a  mischievous  pre- 
tense, which  proved  to  be  a  sophism  both  in  ethics  and  in  politics. 
About  the  same  time  I  had  the  honor  to  emancipate  a  slave  who  had 
taken  refuge  in  my  camp.  I  did  it  on  grounds  opposite  to  those 
asumed  by  Gen.  Butler.  I  refused  to  give  the  negro  up,  not  be- 
cause he  was  a  chattel  forfeited,  but  because  he  was  a  man,  and 
therefore  impossible  to  be  contraband  of  war.  I  expose  the  inapti- 
tude of  Mr.  Pentecost's  comparisons  because  it  is  the  habit  of  social 
reformers  to  press  into  the  service  of  their  argument  the  emancipation 
of  the  slaves.  We  commit  a  solecism  when  we  compare  a  scheme  of 
serfdom  to  that  splendid  achievement  of  liberty. 

I  use  the  word  serfdom  with  deliberation  because  the  ownership 
of  land  has  ever  been  the  political  distinction  between  a  freeman  and 
a  serf.  The  ownership  of  land  is  the  sign  and  title  of  a  freeman,  the 
inspiration  of  his  patriotism.  His  very  estate  is  called  a  freeholding, 
or  a  freehold,  and  he  himself  is  called  a  free-holder.  Every  tenure 
below  the  grade  of  a  freehold  is  politically  "  base"  and  I  am  in- 
formed that  it  is  technically  so  in  law.  "To  confiscate  all  the  farms 
in  the  United  States,  and  to  compel  the  farmers  to  hold  their  lands  as 
tenants  at  will  to  "  Government  "  would  substitute  a  base  tenure  for  a 
free  tenure;  it  would  practically  reduce  farming  to  a  menial  business, 
and  farmers  all  to  serfdom.  Fancy  the  ragged  condition  of  American 
freedom  when  all  the  farms  and  all  the  town  lots  in  the  country  are 
confiscated  by  the  government  and  thrown  into  politics.  Imagine  the 
confiscation  done  in  1889,  The  farms  are  all  owned  by  the  govern- 
ment and  the  letting  them  out  begins.  Would  a  Democrat  get  a  lease 
if  a  Republican  wanted  it?  Not  one.  The  corruption  growing  out  of 
such  a  system  would  breed  Chaos.  The  spirit  of  freedom  may  die  out 
everywhere  else,  but  on  the  hearthstone  of  the  freehold  the  fires  of 
liberty  burn  forever.  It  is  a  perverted  philanthropy  which  seeks  to 
improve  society  by  abolishing  the  freehold. 

Again  Mr.  Pentecost  invites  me  to  read  * '  Progress  and  Pov- 
erty. "  There  is  kindly  patronage  in  the  invitation,  and  I  gratefully 
accept  it,  although  I  think  that  the  weakest  debater  on  any  subject  is 
the  shiftless  disputant,  who,  when  he  has  had  enough  of  the  contro- 
versy throws  a  whole  book  at  his  adversary,  and  tells  him  to  read 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  273 

that.  However,  I  will  read  it  once  more  to  please  Mr,  Pentecost,  and 
while  I  am  about  it,  will  Mr.  Pentecost  gratify  me  by  reading  Sir 
Thomas  More's  Utopia,  and  a  few  chapters  in  Don  Quixote. 


PRIVATE    PROPERTY    IN    LAND. 

Having  had  a  job  of  work  to  do  in  another  part  of  the  State, 
I  am  in  arrears  to  the  critics  who  testify  against  me  in  Nos  96  and 
97.  I  beg  a  little  space  that  I  may  pay  to  all  of  them  the  respect  of 
a  reply. 

Mr.  Lynch  makes  a  strong  case,  and  the  Object-lesson  he  pre- 
sents is  valuable.  It  shows  how  unfairly  taxation  may  be  appor- 
tioned between  the  resident  owner  of  a  town  lot,  and  the  non-resident 
owner  of  the  adjoining  lot,  who  holds  it  for  speculation  only.  In  this 
inequality  lies  the  popularity  of  Mr.  George's  doctrine.  I  think  this 
wrong  can  easily  be  righted  by  fairer  methods  of  assessment,  but 
"will  Mr.  Lynch  explain  how  it  can  possibly  be  cured  by  sweeping 
both  lots  into  the  gulf  of  confiscation  ? 

Mr.  William  C.  Wood  of  Gloversville,  N.  Y.,  overwhelms  me 
with  the  portentous  warning  that  I  h^ve  "  raised  up  a  mightier  ad- 
versary than  Mr.  George— the  combined  legal  and  judicial  talent  of 
the  civilized  world."  This  reads  like  the  challenge  of  the  circus  bills 
which  I  see  on  the  fence  across  the  street,  a  style  of  literary  composi 
tion  greatly  affected  in  these  days,  and  which  I  have  always  admired. 
It  gives  a  piquancy  to  the  double  chestnuts  of  the  clown,  and  the 
double  somersaults  of  the  man  who  jumps  over  eight  horses  and  an 
elephant.  I  enjoy  a  friendly  wrestle  in  The  Open  Cv)URT  with  men 
of  my  own  caliber,  or  with  men  a  trifle  heavier  than  I  am,  but  I  do 
not  care  to  try  a  fall  with  **  the  combined  legal  and  judicial  talent  of 
the  civilized  world."  I  think  it  is  hardly  fair  to  bring  such  a  com- 
bination against  me.  However,  as  Mr.  Samuel  Weller  said  on  his 
way  to  the  swarry,  "I'll  try  and  bear  up  agin  such  a  reg'lar  knock 
down  o'  talent."     I  will  do  the  best  I  can. 

Mr.  Wood  confines  himself  to  massive  law,  and  he  gives  au- 
thority to  his  legal  argument  by  adding  M.  D.  to  his  name,  as  if  the 
discussion  were  a  mere  matter  of  measles  or  lumbago.  A  doctor 
prescribing  law  is  like  a  lawyer  prescribing  physic.  To  rely  on  either 
prescription  is  hazardous  "  The  cobbler  to  his  last  "  is  an  old  prov- 
erb— I  forget  the  Latin  of  it.  Indeed,  I  never  knew  it,  but  the  phi- 
losophy of  it  is  good  in  any  language,  and  will  keep  in  any  climate. 
To  be  sure   a  blacksmith  may  make  a  watch,  but  he  is  liable  to  leave 


2  7  4  WHEELBARtl  O  W. 

out  some  important  wheels  necessary  to  its  perfect  mechanism.  A 
doctor  may  draw  a  tooth,  and  still  not  be  able  to  draw  a  bill  in 
chancery  because  he  is  liable  to  leave  out  some  important  wheels 
essential  to  the  perfect  mechanism  of  the  bill.  When  I  want  a  patch 
put  on  my  boot  I  go  to  a  cobbler  ;  when  I  want  a  fever  cured  I  go 
to  a  doctor  ;  and  when  I  want  a  bit  of  law,  I  go  to  a  lawyer  for  it, 
if  I  can  afford  to  do  so.  It  costs  more  than  the  jurisprudence  I  get 
from  the  tinker,  albeit  he  is  a  wise  man  among  kettles,  but  it  is 
cheaper  even  at  the  higher  price.  For  these  reasons,  not  feeling  com- 
petent to  contradict  the  law  of  land  as  asserted  and  expounded  by 
Dr.  Wood,  I  consulted  a  lawyer,  and  he  told  me  that  Dr.  Wood  was 
wrong  on  every  point  for  which  misfortune,  being  a  doctor  and  not 
a  lawyer  he  is  not  at  all  to  blame.  My  legal  adviser,  not  having 
time  to  attend  to  the  matter,  told  me  to  consult  a  New  York  lawyer 
by  the  name  of  Kent,  and  I  did  so. 

Without  any  legal  assistance  I  could  see  at  a  glance  that  some  of 
Dr.  Wood's  law  was  error.  For  instance,  this  :  "  No  man  absolutely 
owns  land.  He  may  hold,  it  is  true,  an  estate  in  the  land.  This 
estate  consists  of  three  things  :  The  right  of  possession,  the  right  of 
enjoyment,  and  the  right  of  disposition."  I  could  see  in  a  moment 
that  this  curious  bit  of  law  came  out  of  the  surgery,  because  my 
landlord,  the  man  who  owns  the  house  in  which  I  live,  has  not  the 
right  of  possession.  He  is  owner  of  the  house  and  lot,  but  the  right 
of  possession  is  in  me.  He  has  given  me  a  lease  of  the  place  for  one 
year.  From  this  I  think  that  several  men  may  own  several  estates  in 
the  same  piece  of  land,  according  to  the  quantity  of  interest  that 
each  man  hath  therein.  T  may  incidentally  mention  that  Blackstone 
agrees  with  me  in  this,  which  is  a  fortunate  thing  for  Blackstone. 

With  praiseworthy  self-confidence  Dr.  Wood  expresses  his  medi- 
cal opinion  that  even  such  right  in  land  as  a  man  may  have  is  ' '  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  State  to  alter  or  defeat  it."  I  did  not  need 
legal  advice  on  this  part  of  the  subject,  because  I  remembered  that 
this  "right  of  the  State"  is  expressly  denied  by  the  American  con- 
stitution, wherein  it  is  declared  that  "  private  property  shall  not  be 
taken  for  public  use  without  just  compensation."  Here  the  right  of 
the  citizen  to  own  land,  even  as  against  the  State,  is  recognized  and 
protected  by  the  organic  law.  So  long  as  the  constitution  remains  as 
it  is  now,  the  State  has  no  right  to  "  alter  or  defeat  "  the  estate  of 
ownership  which  a  man  may  have  in  his  land.  I  also  remembered 
that  once  I  ' "  entered  "  a  forty-acre  tract  in  Iowa,  for  which  I  paid 
the  government  fifty  dollars.     In  return  for  the  money  I  received  a 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  275 

patent  from  the  United  States  transferring  the  estate  from  the  govern- 
ment to  me,  and  my  heirs  and  assigns  forever.  There  was  nothing 
^said  in  the  deed  about  the  right  of  the  government  to  resume  the 
title  to  the  land,  and  to  confiscate  it  after  scooping  my  fifty  dollars 
into  the  treasury.  My  ownership  of  the  forty  acres  was  complete  as 
soon  as  I  received  the  patent,  and  that  ownership  was  made  secure  to 
me  by  the   Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Dr.  Wood,  in  the  dogmatic  style  which  professional  men  employ, 
asserts  that  "  absolute  private  property  in  land  has  no  legal  existence 
and  is  an  impossibility,  being  incompatible  with  civil  government."  I 
offer  as  evidence  against  that  statement  one  of  the  most  conspicuous 
facts  in  civilization,  the  government  of  the  United  States  under 
which  men  actually  enjoy  the  right  of  absolute  private  property  in 
land.  I  find  in  the  United  States,  compatible  with  private  property 
in  land,  a  very  good  quality  of  civil  government.  It  is  not  perfect 
by  any  means  but  comparatively  speaking,  it  is  a  fair  article  of  gov- 
ernment as  governm'ents  go.  It  is  quite  certain  from  this  evidence 
that  absolute  private  properly  in  land  has  a  legal  existence  in  the 
United  States,  and  is  not  incompatible  with  civil  government  ;  but 
it  is  not  at  all  cprtain  that  civil  government  of  the  best  quality  could 
exist  without  the  right  of  private  property  in  land. 

I  am  somewhat  acquainted  with  real  estate  having  dug  and 
wheeled  a  good  deal  of  it,  but  I  am  not  quite  so  familiar  with  the 
law  of  land  as  I  am  with  the  weight  of  it  on  a  shovel.  I  therefore 
make  the  following  statements  on  the  authority  of  my  legal  adviser. 
Chancellor  Kent,  of  New  York  He  once  wrote  a  book  entitled 
**  Commentaries  on  American  Law,"  I  think  that  was  the  name  of  it, 
and  speaking  of  land-ownership  in  the  United  States,  he  says  : 

"  Though  the  law  in  some  of  the  United  States  discriminates  between  an 
estate  in  free  and  pure  allodium  and  an  estate  in  fee-simple  absolute,  these 
estates  mean  essentially  the  same  thing  ;  and  the  terms  may  be  used  indiscrimi- 
nately to  describe  the  most  ample  and  perfect  interest  which  can  be  owned  in 
land.  The  words  se'zin  and  Jee  have  always  been  so  used  in  New  York  whether 
the  subject  was  lands  granted  before  or  after  the  Revolution;  though  by  the  act  of 
i7.':<7,  the  forrtier  were  declared  to  be  held  by  free  and  common  socage,  and  the 
latter  in  free  and  pure  allodium. 

"  The  New  York  Revised  Statutes  have  abolished  the  distinction,  by  declar- 
ing that  all  lands  within  the  State,  are  allodial^  and  the  entire  absolute  property 
invested  in  the  owners,  according  to  the  nature  of  their  respective  estates." 

In  order  to  ascertain  the  meantng  of  "allodium,"  which  I 
thought  must  be  some  kind  of  metal,  I  searched  in  Webster's  dic- 
tionary, and  there  I    found   the  following   definition   of   the   word: 


276  WHEELBARROW. 

"Allodium  land  which  is  the  absolute  property  of  the  owner  ;  real 
estate  held  in  absolute  independence,  without  being  subject  to  any 
rent,  service,  or  acknowledgment  to  a  superior  "  This  is  about  as- 
plain  as  print  can  make  it,  and  it  must  be  quite  a  revelation  to  Dr. 
Wood  that  all  laAds  in  his  own  State  are  allodial,  and  the  entire, 
absolute  property  invested  in  the  owners.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
Dr.  Wood  neglected  to  examine  the  subject  a  little  before  writing  his 
commentaries  on  the  law  of  real  estate,  because  they  are  so  "incom- 
patible" with  those  of  Chancellor  Kent,  and  so  curiously  at  variance 
with  the  Revised  Statutes  of  New  York.  The  law  of  New  York 
making  all  the  lands  allodial  is  the  law  of  all  the  .States,  and  on  this 
matter  Chancellor  Kent  makes  the  following  remark  : 

"In  many  of  the  States  there  were  never  any  marks  of  feudal  tenure,  and  in 
all  of   them  the  ownership  of  land  is  essentially  free  and  independent." 

Dr.  Wood  tells  us  he  is  aware  that  the  State  has  treated  land  as 
though  it  were  actually  private  property.  Chancellor  Kent  has  now 
told  him  the  reason  why.  The  State  treats  land  as  though  it  were 
actually  private  property,  because  it  actually  is  private  property, 
declared  to  be  so  by  the  law,  and  protected  as  private  property  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  From  all  this  it  appears  that 
it  is  r5r  Wood  who  is  combating  "  the  combined  legal  and  judicial 
talent  of  the  civilized  world." 


THE  COMING  FIGHT  FOR  CONFISCATION. 

In  No.  97  of  The  Open  Court  1  am  confronted  by  three  new 
adversaries  who  reinforce  my  critics  like  the  historic  "men  in  buck- 
ram. "  I  regret  that  these  disputants  exhibit  personal  feeUng,  and 
show  some  signs  of  irritation.  Peevish  personalities  weaken  an  argu- 
ment, and  they  show  some  debility  of  thought.  I  will  reply  to  them, 
so  far  as  I  am  able  to  do  so,  in  their  order. 

Mr.  William  Camm  begins  by  contradicting  some  statements 
made  by  Mr.  Pentecost  in  his  controversy  with  me.  I  take  no  interest 
in  that,  believing  with  Mr.  Camm  that  Mr.  Pentecost  "  is  amply  able 
to  manage  his  own  cause."  I  will  answer  Mr.  Camm,  and  in  doing 
so,  I  must  compliment  him  on  his  refined  phraseology.  There  is 
such  delicate  courtesy  in  saying  to  a  man  during  a  friendly  conversa- 
tion with  him,  "Had  you  thought  beyond  the  end  of  your  nose." 
People  whose  thoughts  are  worth  anything  think  behind  and  a  little 
above  the  nose,  a  habit  which  I  fear  is  not  practiced  by  Mr.  Camm. 


THE  SINGLE   TAX  QUESTION.  277 

When  he  shall  have  acquired  that  habit  he  will  not  say  "the  man 
with  longest  purse  knocks  the  persimmon,"  nor  will  he  talk  about 
"hunting  for  a  mare's  nest  in  words  that  may  be  synonyms." 

Mr,  Camm,  in  his  elegant  way,  referring  to  my  proposition  that 
the  ownership  of  land  has  ever  been  the  political  distinction  between 
a  freeman  and  a  serf,  says:  "Such  a  proposition  is  so  shallow  and  so 
transparent  that  the  man  who  holds  it  ought  never  to  touch  Mr.  P. '5 
glove  nor  that  of  any  other  man  who  has  'seen  the  cat.'"  I  am 
glad  that  my  propositions  are  "transparent,"  for  Mr.  Camm's  are  not 
very  clear,  nor  could  clearness  be  expected  of  a  man  who  gets 
enlightenment  from  the  sight  of  a  cat.  How  did  the  mere  sight  of  that 
cat  inoculate  Mr.  Camm  with  feline  wisdom?  It  is  not  easy  to  reason 
intelHgently  with  men  who,  in  the  inflammation  of  self-conceit,  can 
boast  for  lack  of  argument,  that  they  know  all  about  it  because  they 
"have  seen  the  cat";  yet  people  thus  mentally  infirm,  have  the  nerve 
to  overturn  and  reconstruct  the  whole  social  and  poHtical  constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

"What  the  individual  requires  with  land,"  says  Mr.  Camm, 
"is  secure  possession,  not  ownership."  What  is  ownership  but 
security  of  possession?  To  secure  a  farmer  in  the  possession  of 
his  land,  the  laws  of  the  United  States  confer  upon  him  the  absolute 
right  and  title  to  it,  so  that  no  man  may  molest  him  in  his  quiet  pos- 
session of  his  farm.  His  right  of  ownership  is  made  perfectly  secure 
to  him  by  the  constitution  of  the  State  and  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Not  even  the  government  itself  can  trespass  upon 
him.  It  cannot  even  run  a  highway  across  his  land  for  public  uses 
without  paying  hifti  "just  compensation."  What  security  of  pos- 
session will  a  man  have  under  the  single-tax  or  confiscation  plan, 
which  Mr.  Camm,  very  innocently  says,  "means  the  same  thing 
in  this  connection." 

Mr.  Camm  informs  us  how  bravely  he  "led  men  to  battle  and  to 
death  fighting  for  the  emancipation  of  the  chattel  slaves  and  now  that 
our  heads  are  growing  gray,  he  would  to  heaven  we  could  fall 
in  to  emancipate  the  industrial  slaves— our  own  children."  There  is 
a  little  fustian  in  the  style  of  that  sentence,  arising  probably  from  too 
much  looking  at  cats,  but  we  can  forgive  that,  in  gratitude  for  the 
valorous  deeds  done  by  Mr.  Camm.  I  am  rather  proud  of  Mr  Camm 
for  leading  his  men  to  battle,  because  there  were  so  many  other  com- 
manders who  folloxved  their  men  in,  and  at  a  very  healthy  distance. 
I  also  congratulate  Mr.  Camm  that,  although  he  led  his  men  "to 
death,"   he  managed  to  preserve  himself.     Like  Captain  Sir  John 


2  78  WHEELBARR  O  W, 

Falstaff,  of  martial  renown,  he  led  his  men  "where  they  could 
be  well  peppered,"  and*  like  Sir  John,  he  was  not  peppered  him- 
self. 

Mr.  Camm,  with  the  old  bravery  bubbling  in  his  veins,  wants  to 
"fall  in"  again,  and  fight  more  battles,  "to  emancipate  the  industrial 
slaves."  When  I  carelessly  used  the  word  "serf"  in  describing  the 
landless,  Mr.  Camm  was  offended,  and  rebuked  me  for  it.  He,  him- 
self now  calls  them  "slaves."  and  wants  to  fight  for  them.  He  once 
fought  for  emancipation,  and  now  he  wants  to  fight  for  confiscation. 
I  can  assure  him  that  there  never  was  a  finer  field  for  his  valor  than  is 
presented  in  the  United  States  to-day.  Let  him  open  hie  recruiting 
office  at  once.  Before  the  farmers  of  this  country  will  submit  to  the 
confiscation  of  their  lands,  there  will  be  the  liveliest  fight  that  has 
ever  been  seen  upon  this  earth.  I  advise  Mr.  Camm  to  beat  the  long 
roll  and  "fall  in"  without  further  delay. 

Mr.  J.  K.  Rudyard  comes  next.  He,  too,  in  poverty  of  reasons, 
flings  in  his  little  personalities  after  this  fashion:  "Wheelbarrow 
still  in  wordy  warfare  makes  it  hard  to  believe  that  he  finds  any  real 
difficulty  in  comprehending  the  George  theory.  There  may  be  a  men- 
tal aberration  which  corresponds  with  color-blindness.  If  Wheel- 
barrow is  thus  afflicted  he  deserves  sympathy,  but  uncharitable  people 
will  dismiss  his  case  with  the  remark  that  none  are  so  blind  as  those 
who  will  not  see,"  Mr.  Rudyard,  of  course,  classifies  himself  among 
the  "uncharitable  people,"  and  speaks  in  their  style.  For  the 
opinions  of  uncharitable  people  I  care  very  little;  they  are  as  a  rule, 
neither  sensible  nor  kind.  Only  the  opinions  of  charitable  people  are 
of  any  value  to  me. 

I  do  not  think  it  can  be  fairly  said  that  I  have  ever  had  any  diffi- 
culty in  comprehending  the  "George  theory."  I  have  taken  Mr. 
George  at  his  word,  and  given  his  language  its  accepted  meaning.  If 
it  has  an  occult  meaning  known  only  to  those  who  have  "seen 
the  cat,"  I  may  have  some  difficulty  in  understanding  him.  It  sur- 
prises me  that  so  many  of  Mr.  George's  disciples  fail  to  comprehend 
him;  for  instance,  Mr.  Rudyard,  who,  while  quoting  from  Book  VIII, 
Chap  II,  "Progress  and  Poverty,"  is  so  wilfully  blind  that  he  will 
not  see  the  "George  theory"  as  it  is  proclaimed  in  that  very  chapter. 

If,  as  Mr.  Rudyard  so  courteously  says,  "It  is  all  so  simple  and 
straightforward  that  a  fool  need  not  err  therein,"  why  does  Mr.  Rud- 
yard err  therein?  Why  does  he  quote  from  Chap  II  just  enough  to 
hide,  and  not  enough  to  explain  the  "George  theory?" 

"I  thank  thee,  Jew,  for  giving  me  that  word,"  s^id  Crati&no  to 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  279 

Shylock.  and  I  thank  Mr.  Rudyard  for  giving  me  Book  VIII,  Chap. 
II,  "Progress  and  Poverty."  In  that  chapter,  Mr.  George  declares 
the  injustice  of  private  property  in  land,  and  then  he  shows  us 
the  "straightforward"  way  in  which  he  proposes  to  abolish  it.  Why 
was  Mr.  Rudyard  so  wilfully  blind  that  he  would  not  see  the  follow- 
ing choice  bits  in  Chapter  II: 

"We  have  seen  that  private  property  in  land  has  no  warrant  in  justice, 
but  stands  condemned  as  the  denial  of  natural  right. 

'•We  should  satisfy  the  law  of  justice,  we  should  meet  all  economic  require- 
ments, by  at  one  stroke  abolishing  all  private  titles,  declaring  all  land  public 
property,  and  letting  it  out  to  the  highest  bidders  in  lots  to  suit,  under  such  con- 
ditions as  would  sacredly  guard  the  private  right  to  improvements  " 

I  think  a  man  who  can  read  and  write  must  be  wilfully  blind  if  he 
will  not  see  the  intent  and  purpose  of  that  language.  The  qualifying 
clause  at  the  end  of  the  last  sentence  is  pure  deception  like  the  saving 
clauses  in  a  party  platform.  What  can  any  honest  man  think  of  the 
following  "straightforward"  method  by  which  Mr.  George  proposes  to 
abolish  all  private  titles  "at  one  stroke:" 

"I  do  not  propose  either  to  purchase  or  to  confiscate  private  property  in  land. 
The  first  would  be  unjust,  the  second  needless  Let  the  individuals  who  now 
hold  it  still  retain,  if  they  want  to,  possession  of  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  their 
land.  Let  them  continue  to  call  it  their  land.  Let  them  buy  and  sell,  and  be- 
queath and  devise  it.  We  may  safely  leave  them  the  shell,  if  we  take  the  kernel. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  confiscate  land;  it  is  only  necessary  tc  confiscate  rent.  * 

Here  the  "straightforward"  plan  begins  with  a  juggle  of  words, 
a  distinction  without  a  difference  between  the  confiscation  of  land, 
and  the  confiscation  of  rent.  Is  it  "straightforward"  statesmanship 
which  proposes  to  take  the  kernel  of  a  man's  fortune  from  him, 
and  leave  him  only  the  shell  of  it,  which  is  nothing?  This  leger- 
demain is  conspicuous  all  through  Chap.  II,  Book  VII',  "Progress 
and  Poverty."  In  that  same  chapter,  Mr.  George,  after  showing  to 
his  disciples  the  deadfall  or  trap  into  which  the  farmers  are  to  be  de- 
coyed by  incantations  and  conjurations  about  the  abolishing  of  all 
taxation  except  the  taxation  of  land  values,  says: 

"That  is  the  first  step,  upon  which  the  practical  struggle  must  be  made. 
When  the  hare  is  once  caught  and  killed,  cooking  him  will  follow  as  a  matter  of 
course." 

Certainly,  as  a  matter  of  course.     And  the  farmer,  who  is    so 

blind  that  he  will  not  see  the  hook  within  the  bait,  who  will   stupidly 

walk  into  the  trap,  deserves  to  be    'caught  and  killed."     I   hope  that 

Mr.  George  when  he  catches  him  will  gook  him,  and  cook  him  well, 

*  The  italics  are  by  Mr.  George, 


28o  WHEELBARR  O  W, 

even  as  Molly  Bell  did  cook  Bob  Ridley's  possum.       I  hope  that  Mr. 
George  will  use  him 

"To  make  a  fry,  and  to  make  a  stew, 
And  a  roast,  and  a  bo'l,  and  a  barbecue." 

Reading  in  Book  VIII,  Chap.  II,  '"Progress  and  Poverty,"  the 
"straightforward"  means  by  which  private  property  in  land  is  to  be 
destroyed,  and  noticing  the  very  large  number  of  men  who  are  cap- 
tured by  the  "melancholy  deception,"  I  exclaim  with  Shakespeare: 

"Is't  possible  the  spells  of  George  should  juggle  men 
Into  such  strange  mockeries?" 

As  to  Mr.  F.  Hess,  he  takes  it  out  in  scolding,  and  he  wanders 
away  from  the  question  to  talk  about  matters  which  are  not  in  the 
debate.  There  is  a  little  oil  of  vitriol  in  the  sarcasm  about  "Lord 
Wheelbarrow"  who  has  offended  Mr.  Hess  by  adopting  gold  dollars 
as  the  standard  measure  of  all  values.  I  have  never  done  so.  I 
have  merely  asked  that  my  wages  be  paid  in  gold  dollars  because 
they  are  dear  money,  and  I  prefer  to  be  paid  in  that.  I  hav6  been 
cheated  so  much  and  so  often  by  "cheap  money"  for  dear  work,  that 
I  have  wished  that  some  law  might  be  passed  requiring  that  laborers 
be  paid  in  the  dearest  money  current  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Hess  complains  because  I  have  "not  a  word  to  say  about 
the  practical  confiscation  of  small  freeholds  such  as  Thomas  Clark's 
under  our  present  usurious  system  of  taxation  and  sales  for  delin- 
quent taxes."  Well,  the  reason  why  I  did  not  speak  about  it  was, 
that  I  was  talking  about  something  else;  but  if  confiscating  Tom 
Clark's  farm  for  non-payment  of  taxes  is  an  act  of  injustice,  what 
does  Mr.  Hess  think  of  Mr.  George's  proposition  to  confiscate  every 
man's  farm  for  non-payment  of  taxes  amounting  to  '  'the  whole  income 
and  Vne  full  amtual  value  of  the  land''? 

I  do  not  know  of  any  "Irish  evictions"  here  in  "free  America." 
I  know  of  some  American  evictions  here,  and  T  think  they  ought  not 
to  be  allowed  quite  so  easily  as  they  are;  but  how  will  it  be  under  Mr. 
George's  system,  when  every  farmer  will  be  evicted  at  the  bidding  of 
"the  highest  bidder"  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  farm?  I  wish 
that  no  man  could  be  evicted  from  his  home.  Mr.  George's  plan  will 
evict  everybody.  Under  his  system  the  American  home  would  be 
abolished. 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  281 


THE  RIGHT  OF  EMINENT  DOMAIN. 

Dr.  Wood,  replying  to  my  remarks  about  that  bit  of  law  which 
I  thought  came  "  out  of  the  surgery,"  says,  "  The  surgeon  copied  it 
verbatim  from  'The  Limitations  of  Police  Power,'  by  Christopher  G. 
Tiedeman,  professor  of  jurisprudence  at  the  University  of  Missouri." 
In  that  statement  Dr.  Wood  makes  an  important  mistake.  He  must 
have  copied  from  his  own  memory,  and  not  from  Professor  Tiede- 
man's  book.     Here  is  what  Professor  Tiedeman  says: 

"  An  estate  has,  in  respect  to  the  real  property,  the  three  elements,  the  right 
of  possession,  the  right  of  enjoyment,  and  the  right  of  disposition,  su  ject  to  the 
right  of  the  State  to  defeat  it,  and  appropriate  it  to  the  publ'c  use^  or /or  the  pub- 
lic good.''''  * 

Dr.  Wood  carelessly  omitted  the  words  in  italics,  and  substituted 
for  them  the  following  words,  ''''and  subject  to  the  right  of  the  State  to 
tax  it."  He  also  re-inforced  the  word  '''defeat"  by  the  word  "alter" 
which  is  not  in  the  original  text.  Of  course,  a  writer  is  not  bound  to 
quote  all  that  his  authority  says,  but  he  ought  not  to  halt  in  the  mid- 
dle of  a  sentence,  and  leave  out  its  qualifying  and  explanatory  clause, 
especially  when,  as  in  this  case,  the  very  essence  of  the  statement  is 
in  the  omitted  words.  This  shows  the  danger  of  making  a  "verba- 
tim "  copy  from  memory,  instead  of  book. 

Dr.  Wood  makes  another  mistake  when  he  quotes  Professor 
Tiedeman  as  saying,  that  an  estate  consists  of  three  things,  the  right 
of  possession,  the  right  of  enjoyment,  and  the.  right  of  disposition. 
Professor  Tiedeman  could  hardly  have  said  anything  so  comically 
"absurd."  It  would  be  as  if  a  man  should  say,  "A  dollar  consists  of 
three  things,  weight,  color,  and  size."  These  qualities  may  be  ele- 
ments of  a  dollar,  as  the  rights  of  possession,  enjoyment,  and  dis- 
position may  be  elements  of  an  estate  in  land.  Even  as  Professor 
Tiedeman  made  it,  the  statement  is  incorrect,  because  a  man  may 
have  an  estate  in  land  without  either  of  the  "  elements  "  known  as  the 
right  of  possession  or  the  right  of  distribution. 

Dr.  Wood  says: 
"The  statement  that  absolute  private  property  in  land  has  no  legal  existence, 
that  as  against  the  State  no  man  absolutely  owns  land,  but  that  land  is  always  sub- 
ject to  administration  by  the  State  is  justified  at  length  by  Sheldon  Amos,  Exami- 
ner at  the  Inns  of  Court,  London,  and  may  be  found  in  his  work  on  the  Science  of 
Law." 


282  WHEELBARROW. 

That  is  another  mistake;  and  I  fear  Dr.  Wood  has  again  trusted 
to  his  memory.  It  must  have  been  some  other  book  that  betrayed 
him  into  error.  I  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Amos  "  examines  "  at  the 
Inns  of  Court  in  London,  probably  the  wines  and  liquors,  which,  I 
am  told,  are  very  good  at  the  inns  of  London.  "Examiner  at  the 
Inns"  is,  no  doubt,  a  refined  expansion  of  the  plebeian  word  "gan- 
ger," as  we  speak  it  in  this  country.  I  do  not  admit  his  claims  to 
legal  rank,  nor  his  right  to  speak  as  a  judicial  authority,  but  I  do 
recognize  his  right  to  publish  an  essay  on  the  Science  of  Law,  and 
his  further  right  to  be  quoted  correctly,  or  not  at  all.  His  views  and 
opinions  ought  to  be  fairly  quoted  or  let  alone.  Mr.  Amos's  views 
are  in  strong  contrast  and  opposition  to  those  ascribed  to  him  by  Dr. 
Wood.  Mr.  Amos  tries  to  show  not  only  the  moral  dignity,  but  also 
the  social  value  and  the  political  necessity  of  private  property  in  land. 
I  will  make  a  few  extracts  from  his  essay  on  the  "Science  of  Law," 
and  I  will  be  very  careful  to  copy  him  "'verbatim." 

"  One  of  the  most  important  steps  out  of  savagery  into  civilization  is  marked 
by  the  fact  that  security  of  tenure  depends  upon  some  further  condition  than  the 
mere  ci  cumstSnce  of  possession."     Page  151. 

"  The  moral  aspirations  and  needs  of  individual  man  are  scarcely  less  signal  y 
sustained  and  gratified  by  ownership  than  the  material.'"     Page  155. 

'•It  is  obvious,  that,  apart  from  the  possibility  of  ownership,  the  position  of 
man,  as  a  moral  being,  is  pitiable,  and  even  contemptible  in  the  extreme.'' 
Page  155. 

"  Nor  is  it  merely  that  the  absence  of  ownership  prevents  the  most  precious 
qualities  and  elements  of  human  nature  from  being  properly  cultured  and  de- 
veloped. It  prevents  those  qualities  and  elements  from  so  much  ase.xistingat  all." 
Page  15-. 

'•  From  the  above  considerations  it  will  be  seen  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
favorite  view  of  the  great  school  of  German  jurists,  to  the  effect  that  ownership 
increases  man's  power  {Ve7-in6gen)  or  physical  and  moral  capacity."     Page  157. 

And  much  more  of  the  same  character,  wherein  the  civilizing  and 
refining  influence  of  private  property  in  land  is  "justified  at  length." 
It  is  true  that  Mr.  Amos  asserts  the  power  of  the  State  to  correct  the 
abuses  of  land-ownership,  but  he  claims  that  the  right  of  private 
property  in  land  is  a  very  necessity  of  the  State,  of  more  importance 
to  its  welfare  than   it  is  to  the  welfare  of  the   land-owner  himself. 

Dr.  Wood  takes  a  very  heavy  fall  when  he  drops  from  the  clouds 
of  State  ownership  to  the  hard  ground  of  "eminent  domain."  The 
right  of  eminent  doman  is  not  founded  on  ownership  but  on  the 
political  right  of  sovereignty,  and  it  applies  to  persons,  and  personal 
property,  as  well  as  to  land.  It  may  take  anything  for  public  uses, 
and  even  the  citi?en  himself,  ^s  was  done  by  the  United  States  during 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  283 

the  war.  The  State  does  not  take  the  citizen  or  his  horses  or  his  cat- 
tle, nor  levy  taxes  by  any  right  of  ownership,  but  by  right  of  eminent 
dominion  or  domain.  On  this  subject.  Judge  Cooley,  referring  to  the 
mistake  that  the  right  of  eminent  domain  is  based  on  ownership,  says: 

"  More  accurately  it  is  the  right  which  exists  in  every  sovereignty,  to  control 
and  regulate  those  rights  of  a  public  nature  which  pertain  to  its  citizens  in  com- 
mon and  to  appropriate  and  control  individual  property  for  the  public  benefit,  as 
the  public  safety,  necessity,  convenience,  or  welfare  may  demand." — Cooley  on 
Constitutional  Limitations,  page  524. 

The  right  of  eminent  domain  is  recognized  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  but  limited  so  as  to  exclude  the  doctrine  of  State- 
ownership.  The  citizen  is  called  the  ''owner"  of  the  land  and  the 
government  cannot  deprive  him  of  it  except  for  public  uses,  and  even 
then  it  must  pay  him  '  Just  compensation."     Chancellor  Kent  sa}:>: 

"  The  right  of  eminent  domain  or  i  iherent  sovereign  power  gives  to  the  legis- 
lature the  control  ofprivate  property  for  public  uses,  and  for  public  uses  only." — 
Kent's  Commentaries,  Vol   11,239. 

I  am  criticised  for  using  the  phrase  ''absolute  private  property  in 
land,"  and  I  am  solemnly  reminded  that  rt3j^/w/^ ownership  cannot  exist 
where  the  State  has  the  right  to  confiscate  for  taxes.  This  criticism  is 
a  metaphysical  doubt,  not  an  argument.  We  are  told  by  men  learned 
in  philosophy  that  .the  "absolute"  cannot  exist  in  this  world.  This 
may  be  ideally  true  for  anything  I  know  to  the  contrary,  but  we  are 
dealing  with  actualities,  and  must  use  such  words  as  express  the  facts 
of  life.  I  am  not  responsible  for  the  word  "absolute."  I  found  it 
in  familiar  use  by  the  '*  combined  legal  and  judicial  talent  of  the  civ- 
ilized world."  "Fee-simple  absolute"  has  been  a  law  phrase  for 
centuries.     Chancellor  Kent  says : 

"  The  title  to  land  is  essentially  allodial  and  every  tenant  in  fee-simple  has  an 
absolute  and  perfect  title."—  Kent's  C  ommentaries,  Vol.  Ill,  4SS. 

Even  Webster,  in  his  definition  of  allodium  describes  it  as  "land 
which  is  the  absolute  property  of  the  owner."  The  explanation  is 
easy;  the  law  used  the  strongest  words  it  could  find  in  order  to  give 
emphasis  to  the  right  of  private  ownership,  and  in  order  to  deny  the 
claim  of  ownership  in  the  State. 

What  amazes  me  more  than  anything  else  in  the  controversy  is 
the  statement  of  Dr.  Wood,  that  he  "  was  well  aware  that  the  lands 
of  the  State  of  New  York  were  declared  allodial."  How  a  citizen  of 
New  York,  well  aware  of  that  fact,  could  rise  in  his  place  and  deny 
the  existence  of  private  ownership  is  a  puzzle  that  I  fear  will  never 
be  explained, 


284  WHEELBARROW. 

I  think  that  Dr.  Wood  has  correctly  quoted  Professor  Tiedeman 
in  the  following  extract:  "  Surely,  the  right  of  eminent  domain  can 
rest  only  upon  the  claim  that  the  State  is  the  absolute  owner  of  all 
lands  situate  within  its  dominions."  This  is  nothing  but  the  private 
opinion  of  Professor  Tiedeman,  and  is  of  no  more  value  than  any 
other  man's  opinion,  because  it  has  no  judicial  authority  to  support  it. 
As  well  say  that  the  right  of  eminent  domain  over  horses  and  cows 
rests  upon  the  claim  that  the  State  is  the  absolute  owner  of  all  the  live 
stock  within  its  dominions. 

The  doctrine  of  State-ownership  is  merely  a  tradition  still  run- 
ning along  under  the  momentum  of  the  Norman  conquest.  It  has  no 
longer  any  vitality  even  in  the  law  of  England.  Blackstone  calls  it  a 
"  fiction,"  and  Chancellor  Kent  remarks:  "  The  King  is  by  fiction 
of  law  the  great  lord  paramount  and  supreme  proprietor  of  all  the 
lands  in  the  kingdom."  The  fiction  is  practically  obsolete  in  England, 
and  it  has  been  expressly  abolished  in  America.  Even  Dr.  Wood's 
authority,  Mr.  Amos,  "Examiner  at  the  Inns  "  says: 

'On  the  other  hand  the  Brown,  from  whom  lands  are  sometimes  held  by  a 
tenure  involving  nothing  more  than  the  performance  of  some  ancient  service,  is 
not  considered  as  owner  0/  the  lands'^ 

And  the  learned  author  of  the  article  "Real  Estate,"  in  the  En- 
cyclopedia Britannica,  says: 

'•The  law  of  real  estate  in  the  United  States  is  the  law  of  England  modified 
to  suit  a  diffe  ent  state  of  circumstances.  The  main  point  of  difference  is  that  in 
the  United  Stites,  the  occupiers  of  land  are  generally  wholly  or  in  ^zxX.  owners 
and  not  tenants ^  as  in  England." 

I  have  not  written  on  the  legal  aspects  of  this  question  from  my 
own  learning  or  authority,  because  I  am  not  competent  to  do  that, 
but  1  have  quoted  the  decisions  and  opinions  of  men  who  hold  the 
highest  rank  as  jurists  in  this  country,  men  who  have  no  social  specu- 
lations to  advance,  and  who  explain  to  us  the  law  as  it  actually  is, 
and  not  as  they  may  think  it  ought  to  be.  From  these  authorities,  I 
think,  it  is  very  clear  that  private  property  in  land  has  a  legal  exist- 
ence ill  the  United  States,  and  that  the  right  ot  eminent  domain  does 
not  include  the  State-ownership  of  land. 


LAND  VALUES  AND  PAPER  TITLES. 

In  The  Open  Court  for  August  15th,  I  am  assailed  by  three 
more  soldiers  of  the  "  new  crusade."  They  spring  out  of  the  ground 
like  the  clansmen  of  Roderick  Dhu.  These  are  more  formidable  than 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  285 

some  of  the  others;  they  are  stronger,  and  better  armed.  For  answer 
to  these  new  antagonists  T  will  take  a  few  texts  from  the  law  and  the 
prophets  of  the  new  revolution. 

"Private  property  in  land  has  no  warrant  in  justice." 

'  We  should  meet  all  economic  requiremt-nts  by  at  one  stroke  abolishing  all 
private  titles  declanng  all  land  public  prop ^r^y  and  letting  it  out  to  the  highest 
bidders  " — Henry  George,  "Progress  and  Poverty."  Book  VIII,  Ch.  2. 

"Now  it  is  evident  that,  in  order  to  take  for  the  use  of  the  government  the 
whole  income  arising  from  land  just  as  effectively  as  it  could  be  taken  dy  form- 
ally appropriating  and  letting  out  the  land,  it  is  only  necessary  to  abolish,  one 
after  another,  all  other  taxes  now  levied,  and  to  increase  the  taxes  on  land -values 
till  it  reaches  as  near  as  may  be  the  full  annual  value  oj  the  land.'^— Henry 
George,  "Protection  or  Free  Trade."     P.  302. 

''Georgeism  does  involve  the  practical  confiscation  of  land  by  the  government. 
In  ybrm  it  leaves  the  present  owner  of  land  an  owner  still;  but  in  fact^  the  gov- 
ernment becomes  the  owner  " — Hugh  O.  Pentecost,  Thk  Open  Court,  No.  9-). 

"We  mean  to  destroy  the  private  ownership  of  land  by  confiscating  ground 
rent.'" — Hugh  O.  Pentecost,  The  Open  Court,  No.  94. 

I  present  those  texts  in  order  to  show  that  Mr.  Albro's  very  in- 
structive and  intelligent  article  has  little  application  to  "  Georgeism," 
but  is  explanatory  of  an  entirely  different  scheme  of  change.  Mr. 
Albro's  plan  would  not  destroy  the  private  ownership  of  land.  It 
would  strengthen  private  ownership  by  relieving  the  land-owner  from 
some  of  the  burdens  of  taxation.  It  must  have  been  thus  presented 
^to  the  farmers  at  the  meeting  to  which  Mr.  Albro  refers,  or  they  never 
would  have  approved  the  plan. 

I  am  strengthened  in  that  opinion  by  the  estimate  those  farmers 
made  of  the  taxes  which,  under  Mr.  Albro's  plan,  would  fall  upon  a 
New  Yoric  farm  worth  $15,000.  I  say  Mr.  Albro's  plan,  because  it 
has  no  resemblance  to  the  plan  of  Mr.  Hen-ry  George,  except  in  this, 
that  all  other  taxation  is  to  cease.  The  estimate  made  by  Mr.  Albro, 
and  agreed  upon  by  the  meeting  as  "about  right,"  was  $150,  or  one 
per  cent,  on  the  value  of  the  farm.  This  in  lieu  of  all  other  taxes, 
would  be  a  light  and  easy  burden.  It  would  not  be  "the  wkole 
income,  and  ihc  full  annual  value  of  the  land."  It  would  not  make 
the  government  owner  "in  fact "  of  the  farm.  It  would  not  give  the 
"  I'erner'  of  the  farm  to  the  public,  and  leave  the  "s/iell"  to  the 
owner.  It  would  secure  to  the  farmer  the  ownership  of  his  farm  not 
only  in  form  but  in  fact.  This  is  not  what  Mr.  George  desires.  He 
insists  that  ^//private  titles  shall  be  abolished  "at  one  stroke." 

There  is  much  guesswork  and  fanciful  specu  ation  concerning 
the  "relation  between  land-values  and  population."  The  variations 
are  so  many  that  nothing  positive  or  even  reliable  is  to  be  had  upon 


286  WHEELBARROW. 

that  subject.  It  cannot  be  true  that  the  farmers  and  land-owners  of 
this  country  owe  $600  to  each  and  every  other  person.  '  I  cannot  be- 
lieve that  each  person's  '  existence"  adds  f  600  to  the  value  of  land  in 
the  United  States  I  think  that  whatever  value  my  "existence"  gives 
to  the  farmer's  land,  is  fully  compensated  by  the  value  of  the  farmer's 
"existence"  to  me.  I  think  it  very  likely  that  the  "existence"  of 
some  people  adds  value  to  land,  but  I  am  sure  that  the  "existence"  of 
some  other  people  diminishes  that  value.  How  much  does  the  'ex- 
istence" of  criminals,  idlers,  and  sports  add  to  the  value  of  land? 
Nothing,  and  yet  they  count  equally  with  worthy  citizens  in  the  pop- 
ulation. It  is  not  a  man's  existence  but  his  work  that  benefits  the 
community.  Not  for  being,  but  for  doing,  is  man  entitled  to  any- 
thing.    I  wish  that  Mr.  Albro  would  explain  himself  a  little  further. 

"Tricycle"  is  bright,  witty,  illogical,  and  incautious.  When  I 
advised  Mr.  Pentecost  to  read  Don  Quixote,  I  wondered  whether  any- 
body would  snap  at  the  bait,  compare  me  to  the  Don,  and  laugh  at 
me  for  fighting  windmills  Sure  enough,  Tricycle  took  the  fly  like  a 
hungry  salmon.  He  compares  my  controversy  to  "that  doughty 
hero's  celebrated  battle  with  the  windmills,  which  he  mistook  for 
giants."  Well,  I  did  not  mistake  my  critics  for  giants,  and  if  I 
thought  them  'windmills,"  I  preferred  that  somebody  else  should  call 
them  so. 

Let  me  assure  Tricycle  that  I  never  was  "  haunted  by  the  idea" 
that  under  the  single-tax  Tom  Clark's  farm  would  be  taken  away 
from  him.  I  knew  how  wildly  irrational  and  unjust  was  the  scheme 
of  Henry  George  to  take  it  away  from  hi!n,  either  by  the  "single-tax" 
deception,  or  by  the  bolder  plan  of  confiscation.  I  have  never  been 
"  haunted "  by  any  fear  of  Mr.  George's  impossible  revolution.  It 
will  never  come. 

Tricycle  thinks  it  strange  that  I  cannot  see  "  that  the  single  tax 
would  leave  Tom  Clark  in  absolute  possession  of  his  farm."  I  think 
it  strange  that  Tricycle  cannot  see  the  contrary  after  reading  in  the 
text  what  Mr.  George  means  by  the  expression  "single-tax."  In  ad- 
dition to  what  I  have  quoted  at  the  beginning  of  this  reply,  I  will  now 
give  Mr.  George's  latest  utterance  on  the  subject  printed  in  a  recent 
number  of  The  Standard: 

"  Although  the  right  of  private  property  in  land  is  not  the  present  practical 
question  in  connection  with  the  single  tax,  it  is  involved  and  should  be  understood 
by  all  who  undertake  to  promote  or  antagonize  the  movement." 

Here  Mr.  George  confesses  that  the  very  right  of  Tom  Clark 
to  his  farm  is  involved  in  the  single-tax  question,  and  yet  Tricycle 


THE  SINGLE   TAX  QUESTION.  287 

thinks  it  strange  that  1  cannot  see  that  the  single-tax  "  would  leave 
Tom  in  the  absolute  possession  of  his  farm.  " 

It  is  a  pity  that  a  writer  so  keen  as  Tricycle  should  be  so  defi- 
cient in  the  logical  faculty  as  to  see  no  difference  between  the  man 
who  recognizes  private  property  in  land  and  the  man  who  does  not; 
between  a  wish  to  increase  the  number  of  land-owners  and  a-  scheme 
to  deprive  every  man  of  his  land.  I  desire  to  increase  the  number  of 
the  landed,  and  diminish  the  number  of  the  landless,  while  Mr. 
George  declares  that  every  man  must  be  landless.  By  a  most  illogi- 
cal contradiction  Tricycle  asserts  that  this  would  make  all  men  land- 
owners. As  well  say  that  the  confiscation  of  all  the  cattle  in  the  country 
would  give  every  man  milk  for  his  coffee.  It  is  false  reasoning  that 
leads  a  man  to  say  the  destruction  of  land-ownership  would  make  all 
men  land -owners. 

Mr.  Theodore  P.  Perkins,  suspicious  that  the  doctrine  of  Henry 
George  is  indefensible,  drops  him  altogether,  and  says:  "  It  is  not  so 
important  to  know  what  Mr.  George  or  any  one  else  meant  by  certain 
phrases,  as  it  is  to  know  what  is  a  just  land  system,  and  how  we  are 
to  get  it."  This  is  a  new  departure,  and  a  very  sensible  one  too,  but 
it  reflects  not  on  me.  For  months  my  critics  have  been  pounding  me 
with  Henry  George;  they  have  been  explaining  what  they  call 
"  Georgeism;"  they  have  been  advising  me  to  read  his  works  that  I 
might  correctly  understand  him  They  have  beeen  dogmatizing  like 
sectarians,  and  with  a  good  deal  of  self-righteousness  have  described 
themselves  as  "  Georgeites."  Now  I  am  gravely  told  by  '  -r.  Perkins 
that  it  is  not  important  to  know  what  Mr.  George  meant  by  what  he 
said.  Mr.  Perkins  cannot  switch  the  George  doctrine  on  to  the  side 
track,  because  he  thinks  it  has  been  damaged  in  the  collision. 
"  Georgeism"  so-called,  not  by  me,  but  by  the  sect  of  Henry  George, 
is  the  theme  of  this  debate.  It  cannot  be  hustled  out  of  the  way  by 
Mr.  Perkins,  because  he  has  had  enough  of  it.  I  most  heartily  agree 
with  Mr.  Perkins  that  it  is  not  important  what  Mr.  George  or  any  one 
else  means.  The  subject  itself  is  a  grander  theme  than  the  opinions  of 
any  man.  When  I  see  the  obsequious  deference  which  my  critics  pay 
to  Henry  George  and  "Georgeism,"  I  offer  them  the  advice  which 
Jefferson  gave  to  his  nephew,  Peter  Carr:  "  Never  believe  nor  re- 
ject anything  because  any  other  person  rejected  or  believed  it." 

Mr.  Perkins  is  a  robust  antagonist,  A  man  of  ability,  who  thinks 
for  himself,  who  knows  that  he  is  honest  and  believes  that  he  is  right 
in  his  opinions,  is  not  to  be  easily  disposed  of.  He  is  much  stronger 
than  the  man  who  confesses  himself  the  disciple  of  another,  and  is 


288  WHEELBARROW. 

therefore  embarrassed  by  the  eccentricities  and  the  inconsistencies  of 
his  master  and  apostle.  It  is  Mr.  Theodore  Perkins  who  must  be 
answered  now,  and  not  Mr.  Henry  George. 

Mr.  Perkins  emphatically  says  that  it  is  not  just  that  land  should 
have  an  "owner"  but  he  claims  that  man  should  have  "  the  privilege 
of  peaceably  occupying  land  for  use."  This  peaceable  occupation, 
he  says,  "is  a  right."  If  so,  this  "right"  ought  to  be  made  secure, 
and  its  highest  security  is  ownership.  On  that  security  depends  the 
whole  theory  and  practice  of  agriculture,  the  strength  and  foundation 
of  all  the  other  arts  and  sciences.  When  this  security  is  denied 
and  the  land  is  made  common  property,  agriculture  ceases,  and  hunt- 
ing takes  its  place.  Mr.  Perkins  insists  that  the  privilege  of  peace- 
ably occupying  land  for  use  is  a  "right,"  but  the  red  savages  of 
America,  who  anticipated  Mr.  George  by  many  centuries,  deny  this 
right  entirely.  They  say  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  appropriate  the 
land  or  any  portion  of  it  for  his  own  peaceable  occupation,  because 
the  Great  Spirit  gave  it  as  the  common  property  of  all. 

There  is  a  good  quality  of  moralizing  in  the  reflections  of  Mr. 
Perkins  on  the  abuses  of  land-ownership,  and  the  wickedness  of 
private  property  in  land,  but  he  converts  it  all  into  pure  sentiment 
when  he  says  :  "  It  is  true  that  every  man  has  a  right  to  as  much 
control  over  land  as  is  needful  for  his  use  and  enjoyment  of  it,  and 
for  the  security  of  the  fruits  of  his  labor."  Very  well,  what  is  this 
right  to  control  but  ownership  ?  If  a  man  has  the  right  to  control  a 
piece  of  land,  every  other  man's  infringement  upon  it  is  a  trespass. 
Mr.  Perkins  qualifies  his  concession  by  denying  that  this  right  exists 
after  death.  I  think  his  position  here  is  weak,  both  in  morals  and  in 
politics.  What  sort  of  civilization  is  it  wherein  a  man  has  no  induce- 
ment to*  work  for  his  children  ?  What  sort  of  savagery  would  result 
should  every  man's  property  be  scrambled  for  at  the  moment  of  his 
death?  Where  would  be  "the  security  of  the  fruits  of  his  labor," 
if  a  farmer  could  not  share  those  fruits  with  his  family,  and  leave 
them  to  his  family   at  his   death  ? 

The  privilege  of  controlling  land  which  the  owner  is  not  using, 
is  a  wrong,  says  Mr.  Perkins  ;  so  that  the  right  or  wrong  of  land- 
owning shrinks  to  the  narrow  measure  of  use.  "  The  question  is," 
remarks  Mr.  Perkins,  "how  shall  we  get  rid  of  the  unjust  privileges 
without  letting  go  the  rights?"  Why,  we  must  reach  them  by  the 
serpentine  road  that  winds  around  Robin  Hood's  barn.  Here  is  the 
scheme  of  Mr.  Perkins  :  First,  "  In  the  case  of  unimproved  land, 
to  refuse  governmental  assistance  to  the  holders  of  paper  titles  against 


THE  SINGLE   TAX  QUESTION.  289 

would-be  settlers,  meanwhile  protecting  such  settlers  from  the 
interference  of  the  owner  or  his  agents." 

Let  us  examine  that  anomaly  for  a  moment.  Government  gives 
a  man  a  patent  to  a  piece  of  land,  and  when  the  trespasser  invades 
it,  the  government  dishonors  its  own  deed  and  protects  the  trespasser 
against  the  "interference"  of  the  owner.  But,  suppose  there  are 
eight  or  ten  "would-be  settlers,"  all  jumping  the  claim  at  the 
same  time  ;  shall  their  disputes  be  settled  by  bloodshed,  or  by  the 
courts?  If  by  the  courts,  the  decision  in  favor  of  one  or  the  other  of 
them  becomes  enrolled  on  the  records  of  the  courts,  and  that  record 
becomes  another  "paper  title,"  which  the  courts,  according  to  the 
land  scheme  of  Mr.  Perkins,  are  bound  to  dishonor  in  behalf  of  some 
new  would  be  settler,  who  has  made  another  trespass  upon  the  land, 
and  so  on  forever.  A  "  paper  title,"  whether  it  is  a  deed,  a  patent, 
or  a  judicial  decree  is  only  evidence  of  title,  and  under  any  civilized 
land  system  that  evidence  must  exist  on  paper  somewhere,  before 
any  man  can  be  safe  in  the  enjoyment  of  "  the  right  of  occupying 
land  for  use."     This  is  Mr.  Perkins'  first  step  to  chaos. 

And  the  second  is  like  unto  it.  "In  the  case  of  improved  lands, 
to  refuse  government  assistance  to  the  holders  of  paper  titles  against 
the  owners  of  the  improvements  on  the  land."  But,  what  if  the 
owner  of  the  paper  title  is  also  the  owner  of  the  improvements  on  the 
land,  and  a  trespasser  comes  and  pitches  him  into  the  road  ?  His 
"  paper  title "  being  of  no  value  in  the  courts  he  can  only  obtain 
redress  by  proving  that  he  made  the  improvements  on  the  land.  This 
might  be  a  difficult  thing  to  do,  and  suppose  he  did  not  make  the  im- 
provements himself,  but  bought  them  of  the  man  who  did  make 
them,  his  proof  of  this  must  be  the  paper  title  called  a  deed,  which, 
according  to  Mr.  Perkins,  the  government  must  not  recognize,  for 
his  third  step  to  chaos  is  this  :  "  To  refuse  to  record  warranty  deeds, 
or  to  enforce  the  provisions  peculiar  to  them  ;"  and  the  fourth  is  this: 
"  To  refuse  to  enforce  any  conditions  in  deeds  eld  or  new." 

And  to  make  confusion  worse  confounded:  "In  general,  to 
assume  that  occupancy  and  use  give  thp  best  title,  and  to  refuse  to 
consider  any  suits  at  law  for  the  purchase  money  or  rent  of  land, 
apart  from,  or  over  and  above,  the  value  of  the  improvements  on  it." 
This  would  be  to  make  all  men  "  infants"  by  declaring  them  incapa- 
ble of  making  contracts  The  seller  and  the  buyer  of  a  farm  would 
not  be  allowed  to  agree  upon  its  value  if  any  part  of  the  purchase 
money  remained  unpaid.  The  debt  could  not  be  secured  by  mort- 
gage, because  that   would  be  a  "  paper  title  "  which  the  courts  must 


2  go  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

not  recognize.  It  could  not  be  evidenced  by  a  note  for  the  same 
reason.  The  parties  to  the  sale  would  not  be  bound  by  their  own 
agreement,  and  the  whole  neighborhood  must  be  called  in  to  decide 
upon  the  value  of  the  improvements  on  the  land,  every  man  making  a 
different  estimate,  and  holding  an  opinion  different  from  the  others. 
This  reaction  toward  the  ancient  barbarism  out  of  which  society 
has  been  evolved  through  the  travail  of  many  centuries,  is  innocently 
called  by  Mr.  Perkins  a  "  reform."  It  would  be  a  return  to  the 
land  system  of  the   savages. 


PRODUCTION  AND  LAND-OWNERSHIP. 

Dr.  Wood  returns  to  the  charge  in  No.  io6  of  The  Open  Court, 
with  a  criticism  entitled  "Wheelbarrow's  Heresy;"  and  reasoning 
inversely,  as  his  habit  seems  to  be,  pretends  to  see  some  "George 
Theory"  in  my  article  on  "Convict  Labor."  By  the  orthodox  tone 
of  Dr.  Wood,  I  recognize  a  controversial  friend  who  used  to  say: 
"I  differ  with  you  in  this  matter,  and  that  puts' you  prima  facie  in 
the  wrong." 

Because  I  claim  that  every  man  should  work  in  order  that  our 
comforts  may  be  multiplied.  Dr.  Wood  concludes  that  by  that  claim  I 
testify  to  t'.ie  wisdom  of  his  way  of  reaching  the  result.  This  begs  the 
question,  for  the  dispute  between  us  is  about  the  means  to  accomplish 
the  desired  end.  Dr.  Wood  assumes  that  because  I  wish  to  see  a  suf- 
ferer cured  of  typhoid  fever,  I  must  therefore  favor  the  remedies  pre- 
scribed by  Dr.  Wood,  when,  in  fact,  I  may  believe  that  his  treatment 
of  the  case  will  make  the  patient  worse  instead  of  better. 

Dr.  Wood  appears  to  think  it  "no  trouble  to  show  goods,"  and 
he  spreads  upon  the  counter  a  lot  of  remnants  which  have  been  in 
stock  for  ages,  such  as  "  comforts  and  necessities  are  drawn  from  the 
great  storehouse  of  nature;"  "by  labor  acting  upon  raw  material 
wealth  is  produced;"  "without  access  to  the  raw  materials  furnished 
by  the  earth,  labor  must  cease  to  exist;"  and  much  Bunsbeyism  of 
the  same  sort.  I  am  ponderously  told  that  after  inspecting  those  rem- 
nants I  shall  be  "  forced  to  admit  that  the  right  to  live,  the  right  to 
labor  and  produce  being  granted,  it  also  follows  that  the  right  to  land 
upon  which  to  labor  and  to  live  is  self-evident." 

I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  "the  right  to  live,"  any  more  than  the 
sheep  which  I  slay  for  food;  but  I  am  certain  that  I  have  "the  right 
to  labor,"  and  I  must  do  my  fellow-men  the  justice  to  say  they  have 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  291 

never  abridged  that  right.  In  fact,  they  have  never  been  jealous  when 
I  have  enjoyed  the  right  of  working  twelve,  fourteen,  or  sixteen  hours 
a  day.  "The  right  to  labor,"  in  my  case,  has  been  too  generously 
g'ven. 

Was  it  by  inadvertence  or  design  that  Dr.  Wood,  while  insisting 
upon  my  right  "to  live,  to  labor,  and  to  produce,"  omitted  to  men- 
tion my  right  to  ^ze/w,?  If  he  answers  that  the  "right  to  land  upon 
which  to  labor  and  to  live,"  includes  the  rest,  I  reply  that  it  does  not. 
The  negro  slaves  had  the  right  to  land  on  which  to  live  and  labor.  It 
was  a  worthless  right.  What  I  contend  for  is  the  right  to  land  upon 
which  to  labor  and  to  live,  to  own  and  to  enjoy.  The  "George 
Theory"  denies  me  the  right  to  own. 

"  God  has  made  man  a  land  animal,"  says  Dr.  Wood,  "  incapa- 
ble of  existing  elsewhere,  and  an  all-wise  intelligence  would  never 
have  subjected  man  to  certain  conditions  without  at  the  same  time 
furnishing  him  with  the  right  and  means  of  compliance."  How  does 
Dr.  Wood  know  all  that  ?  Is  he  a  Doctor  of  Divinity  too  ?  I  do  not 
venture  upon  the  theology  of  the  question,  for  I  do  not  understand  it, 
but  admitting  that  Dr.  Wood  knows  all  about  it,  he  proves  too  much. 
If  God  has  made  man  a  land  animal,  has  he  not  made  the  deer  a  land 
animal  also?  And  what  right  has  one  land  animal  to  deprive  another 
land  animal  of  land  ?  Every  other  land  animal  asserts  the  same  inherit- 
ance from  God.  The  water  animals  all  make  the  same  claim  to  the  sea. 
One  claim  is  as  good  as  the  other.  God  made  the  sea,  says  the  whale, 
for  me.  Who  shall  contradict  him?  Are  not  all  the  "conditions"  of 
his  argument  there  ? 

The  buffalo  claims  that  the  land  animal,  man,  has  tortured  and 
disfigured  the  land  with  plows,  and  harrows  and  spades,  instead  of 
leaving  it  undefiled  and  beautiful  as  it  came  from  the  hand  of  God. 
He  says,  the  "all-wise  intelligence  made  these  plains  and  covered 
them  with  grass  for  me.  He  has  adapted  me  to  grazing  conditions 
and  supplied  the  grass.  He  would  not  do  that  without  furnishing  me 
the  right  of  enjoyment."  The  red  Indian  land  animal  denies  that,  and 
asserts  that  God  made  the  plains  as  hunting-grounds  for  him,  and 
furnished  the  game  in  the  shape  of  buffalo.  The  Caucasian  land 
animal  denies  the  rights  of  both,  and  says  that  the  fertility  of  the  soil 
proves  that  God  made  the  land  for  the  man  who  has  sense  enough  to 
plow  it  and  plant  it  with  cabbages  and  corn.  We  are  on  perilous 
ground  when  we  explain  the  purposes  of  God. 

In  the  early  settlement  of  Iowa  there  lived  on  the  Boone  River  in 
what  is  now  called  Webster  County,  a  frontiersman  named  Allen.     I 


292  WHEELBARROW. 

knew  him  well,  Horatio,  a  fellow  of  infinite  jest,  of  most  exquisite 
fancy.  He  was  a  brave,  kind,  hospitable,  honest  man,  and  like  Nim- 
rod  "a  mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord."  He  had  a  wife  to  corres- 
pond, a  mother  in  Israel  blessed  in  the  memory  of  all  travelers  who 
have  stopped  at  her  house  on  their  way  forward  and  backward  across 
that  part  of  Iowa.  We  had  to  stop  there,  for  it  was  the  only  place  to 
stop  between  the  Iowa  River  and  the  Des  Moines.  Mrs.  Allen  carried 
a  sensitive  religious  conscience  into  everything,  even  into  cookery. 
In  that  virtue  she  excelled  all  other  women.  I  do  not  think  that  any 
other  woman  ever  knew  how  to  cook  a  venison  steak,  and  cook  it 
right;  while  the  recollection  of  her  crab-apple  sauce  is  a  perpetual 
feast  to  me. 

My  work  in  those  days  caused  me  to  travel  a  good  deal  across 
that  country,  and  I  often  stopped  at  Allen's,  where  I  was  always  wel- 
comed with  three  cheers;  no  flip-flap  shake  of  the  hand,  and  a  formal 
'  Glad  to  see  you,"  but  three  actual  cheers  that  shook  the  leaves  off 
the  trees  in  "Allen's  Grove."  And  then  the  best  of  everything,  fish, 
venison,  and  such  butter  and  cream  as  the  city  millionaire  cannot  buy 
for  money.  I  dare  not  mention  the  size  and  flavor  of  the  vegetables, 
because  if  I  should  mention  them,  I  should  not  be  believed.  Allen 
was  a  devout  man,  and  gave  thanks  to  God  in  a  frank,  sincere  and 
manly  way.  Always  before  retiring  for  the  night  the  household  united 
with  him  in  prayer,  and  this  is  what  he  prayed:  *  Oh  Lord,  we  thank 
thee  that  thou  hast  cast  our  lot  in  this  howling  wilderness;  we  thank 
thee  that,  although  the  buff'alo  is  getting  scarce,  the  elk  is  abundant  on 
the  prairie,  and  the  deer  tollable  plenty  in  the  timber;  we  thank  thee 
for  the  Boone  River  meandering  through  the  grove;  we  thank  thee 
for  stocking  it  with  fish  of  good  quality,  and  that  we  have  no  trouble 
in  getting  a  mess  of  pickerel  or  black  bass,  and  occasionally  a  trout." 
Here  was  a  land  animal  who  religiously  believed  that  all  other  land 
animals,  and  water  animals  for  that  matter  were  created  merely  to  be 
his  prey;  but  the  elk,  the  deer,  the  pickerel,  and  the  trout  were  of  a 
diff"erent  opinion,  and  might  reasonably  claim  the  benefit  of  the  argu- 
ment from  adaptation. 

It  is  a  melancholy  delusion  that  by  abolishing  the  private  owner- 
ship of  land,  production  will  be  increased,  and  the  comforts  of  life 
multiplied.  The  opposite  result  must  follow,  and  for  that  reason  I 
oppose  the  fantastic  speculation  called  the  "George  Theory."  It  is 
merely  a  claim  refuted  by  the  history  of  centuries  and  by  all  the  facts 
of  civilization.  Without  the  right  or  hope  of  ownership  there  is  no 
stimulus  to  production.   Where  individual  reward  is  denied,  individual 


THE  SINGLE   TAX  QUESTION.  293 

exertion  ceases.  Men  will  not  cultivate  land  without  security  of  ten- 
ure, and  the  best  security  is  ownership.  This  is  the  supreme  inspira- 
tion of  agriculture.  To  increase  production.  I  desire  to  increase  the 
number  of  land  owners  instead  of  abolishing  land-owners  altogether. 
Mr.  George's  design  is  a  reaction  towar  1  the  pri.nitive  state  of  man. 

It  is  not  new.  It  was  the  law  for  thouaands  of  years,  and  it  is  yet 
the  law  among  the  barbarous  tribes  in  Africa,  America,  and  Australia. 
It  yielded  slowly  to  the  law  of  evolution,  but  it  yielded,  and  its,resur- 
rection  is  impossible.  By  this  law  the  hunter  gives  way  to  the  shep- 
herd, and  the  shepherd  yields  to  the  plowman.  Man  developed 
from  the  savage  state  where  all  the  lands  and  animals  were  owned  in 
common,  to  the  pastoral  state,  where  flocks  and  herds  were  private 
property,  and  from  the  pastoral  state  to  the  higher  civilization  of  agri- 
culture, wherein  the  title  to  the  very  land  itself  was  given  to  the 
farmer  as  an  inducement  for  him  to  cultivate  the  soil. 

From  game  to  sheep  was  a  great  advance,  from  a  forest  of  doubt- 
ful food  to  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  was  a  beneficent  emi- 
gration. The  phrase  poetically  pictures  a  land  rich  in  grass  for  cattle, 
and  flowers  for  bees.  Only  a  pastoral  people  could  appreciate  its  value. 
From  a  land  of  milk  and  honey  to  a  land  of  corn,  and  wine,  and  oil, 
was  a  more  beneficent  emigration  still.  It  was  an  advance  to  agricul- 
ture and  the  private  ownership  of  land.  This  law  of  evolution  is  visi- 
ble in  the  allegory  of  Cain  and  Abel.  Abel  was  a  "  keeper  of  sheep," 
but  Cain  was  a  "  tiller  of  the  ground."  Pasturage  is  overcome  by  till- 
age. It  is  the  law.  The  man  who  can  earn  his  dinner  from  a  yard  of 
land  must  have  the  land  in  preference  to  him  who  requires  for  his 
dinner  a  territory  long  and  wide  as  a  sheep's  ramble,  or  a  stretch  of 
land  equal  to  the  reach  of  an  arrow  from  his  bow.  The  scheme  of 
confiscation  as  advanced  by  Henry  George  and  his  disciples,  if 
seriously  attempted,  would  countermarch  humanity,  and  turn  man- 
kind from  progress  backward  toward  poverty. 


CHEAPEN    LAND  BY  TAXING  IT. 

In  The  Open  Court,  No.  107,  Mr.  J.  G.  Malcolm  wraps  up  a 
conundrum  in  a  very  comical  paradox,  and  then  hurls  it  at  me. 
Presuming  that  Mr.  Malcolm  is  not  jesting  with  me  but  inquiring  in 
good  faith,  I  will  answer  him.  He  calls  upon  me  to  "explain  why 
it  is  that  to  tax  anything  else  but  land  makes  it  higher-priced  ;  but  to  tax 
land  makes  it  cheaper,  and  the   higher  it   is  taxed  the  cheaper  it  be- 


294  WHEELBARROW. 

comes?"  The  fallacy  here  is  concealed  in  the  assumption  that  the 
tax  is  a  burden  in  one  case  and  a  benefit  in  the  other.  The  truth 
is  that  the  tax  is  a  burthen  in  both  cases,  the  manner  of  its  mischief 
being  differently  shown. 

A  tax  upon  land  operates  as  a  bligjit  in  proportion  to  the  seventy 
of  the  tax.  It  cheapens  land  as  Canada  thistles  cheapen  it,  by  mak- 
ing it  less  valuable,  and  harder  to  enjoy.  Ten  years  ago  a  plague  of 
locusts  fell  upon  Northwestern  Iowa.  In  despair  the  farmers  of  that 
region  sold  their  farms  for  a  trifle  and  fled  from  the  plague.  The 
locusts  were  a  blessing  because  they  cheapened  land.  The  single- 
tax  plague  woifld  cheapen  land  just  as  the  grasshoppers  did.  It  is  a 
mistake  that  we  can  benefit  the  general  community  by  tormenting 
land  with  any  form  of  barrenness,  tax,  or  blight. 

Another  fallacy  concealed  in  the  conundrum  is  that  land  and 
personal  effects,  as  merchandise,  have  the  same  character,  as  for  in- 
stance, cloth  and  land,  when  the  true  comparison  is  .between  the 
product  of  the  loom  and  the  product  of  the  land.  We  may  make 
land  less  desirable  or  "  cheaper"  by  taxing  it,  but  the  man  who  cul- 
tivates it  must  add  his  extra  taxes  to  the  price  of  wheat  and  pork  or 
he  must  perish.  Unless  he  can  get  his  taxes  back  by  the  sale  of  his 
produce,  he  must  abandon  the  land,  and  if  we  make  the  single  tax 
high  enough,  we  can  make  the  land  so  cheap  as  to  be  worth  nothing. 
We  may  levy  this  single- tax  on  sheep,  and  the  effect  will  be  to  make 
sheep-raising  so  precarious  as  to  cheapen  sheep,  but  the  sheep-raiser 
must  lay  his  tax-burden  on  to  the  wool  he  sells,  and  the  weaver  who 
pays  it  in  the  higher  price  of  wool  must  lay  it  on  to  cloth  ;  and  so  on 
until  it  falls  at  last  upon  the  man  who  buys  a  coat,  the  final  product 
of  the  sheep  and  of  the  loom.  Either  that,  or  it  will  tax  all  sheep- 
owning  out  of  existence,  as  Mr.  George  and  his  disciples  propose  to 
tax  land-owning  out  of  the  world. 

What  matters  it,  whether  land  is  cheap  or  dear  if  men  are  not 
permitted  to  own  it  ?  In  Mr.  George's  Utopia  men  are  forbidden  to 
own  land,  aud  consequently  can  have  no  object  in  buying.  The 
single-tax  artifice  is  used  by  Mr.  Malcolm,  although  he  ought  to 
know  by  this  time  that  it  has  no  place  in  Mr.  George's  theory,  except 
as  a  means  by  which  to  confiscate  all  the  lands  in  the  country.  Mr. 
George  says  the  end  he  seeks* is  the  abolition  of  private  property  in 
land  ;  the  single-tax  contrivance  he  declares  is  only  the  means  to 
that  end.  The  substance  of  the  plan  is  confiscation,  the  single-tax 
the  form. 


THE  SINGLE   TAX  QUESTION.  295 


USERS  OF  LAND,  AND  OWNERS  OF  LAND. 

Dr.  Wood  comes  back  again  and  says  that  he  and  "Wheel- 
barrow" are  getting  together  very  rapidly  I  am  glad  to  hear  it.  He 
is  not  the  first  of  my  critics  to  see  the  error  of  his  doctrine.  Mr. 
Pentecost,  who  censured  me  for  doubting  the  efficacy  of  the  single- 
tax  expedient,  now  denounces  it  himself.  In  a  recent  number  of  the 
Twentieth  Century  he  proclaimed  the  single-tax  to  be  a  "humbug 
and  a  farce."  I  never  said  anything  about  it  so  severe  as  that.  I 
have  called  it  a  "deception,"  but  without  implying  that  its  advocates 
have  any  intention  to  deceive,  for  I  do  not  think  they  have.  They 
and  their  disciples  are  all  innocent  victims  of  the  same  philanthropic 
delusion.  Persons  who  compare  Dr.  Wood's  last  criticism  with 
his  first  one,  will  see  what  a  great  advance  he  has  made  in  the 
knowledge  and  understanding  of  land,  and  man's  relation  to  it.  He 
will  soon  discover  the  impossibility  of  making  all  men  land  owners  by 
the  inverse  process  of  abolishing  land  ownership.  National  owner- 
ship of  all  the  postoffices  does  not  make  me  a  postmaster,  neither  will 
government  land  ownership  make  me  a  land  owner,  I  think  it 
would  be  very  unjust  if  every  man  should  own  the  land  that  one  man 
tills.  I  think  that  he  alone  should  own  it.  More  than  that,  I  think 
his  land  should  bear  its  fair  proportion  of  the  public  taxes  according 
to  its  value,  and  no  more. 

Dr.  Wood  reproaches  me  that  I  have  as  yet  "advanced  no 
remedy  except  objections  to  other  people's  remedies."  I  am  not 
quite  certain,  but  I  think  that  statement  is  correct.  I  have  not  yet 
received  my  diploma  as  a  Doctor  of  Politics  and  I  am  afraid  that  if 
I  should  go  to  mixing  "remedies,"  I  should  not  succeed  any  better 
than  Dr.  Wood.  I  fear  that  like  him  I  should  provide  another  bane 
instead  of  an  antidote.  Besides,  a  man  may  criticise  the  plans  of 
others  without  thereby  assuming  any  obligation  to  furnish  better 
plans.  Last  month  I  attended  a  Scotch  picnic,  and  had  great  sport 
in  watching  the  athletic  games.  The  prize  for  the  longest  running 
jump  brought  out  many  competitors.  The  best  jump  was  made  by 
a  sinewy  fellow  who  cleared  19  feet  11  inches.  I  happened  to 
say  to  a  friend  that  it  wasn't  a  great  jump,  when  a  bystander,  a 
friend  of  the  jumper,  turned  sharply  upon  me,  and  said:   "Well,  go 


296  WHEELBARROW. 

and  beat  it  or  shut  up."  I  thoflght  him  very  rude,  because  I  was  not 
bound  to  beat  it  before  criticising  the  achievement.  And  in  like 
manner,  all  sorts  of  botch  work  claims  immunity  by  demanding  that 
its  critic  shall  do  better  or  say  nothing. 

Can  anything  be  more  useless  than  a  scheme  to  deprive  the 
farmer  of  his  land,  and  then  "leave  him  secure  in  his  possession  and 
use  of  it?"  I  want  to  give  him  that  security  by  making  him  the 
owner  of  the  land.  I  desire  to  see  men  owners  and  not  renters  of 
the  soil  We  perpetrate  a  solecism,  grotesque  and  palpable  when  we 
confiscate  a  farm  in  order  to  make  the  farmer  "secure  in  his  posses- 
sion and  use  of  it." 

Dr.  Wood  says:  "In  order  to  increase  production  I  desire  to 
increase  the  number  of  land  users."  Very  well!  But  no  man  can  or 
will  use  land  to  its  greatest  capacity  of  production  unless  he  is  the 
actual  owner  of  the  soil  No  man  with  a  title  below  the  rank  of 
ownership  can  afford  to  cultivate  his  land  to  the  best  advantage.  He 
cannot  afford  to  plant  orchards  and  vineyards,  dig  wells,  build 
houses,  barns,  windmills,  buy  reapers,  mowers,  threshing  machines, 
or  even  make  his  fences  permanent  and  strong.  He  cannot  even 
afford  to  manure  the  land.  In  proportion  to  the  strength  of  his  title 
will  he  develop  the  resources  of  his  farm. 

Mr.  Theodore  Perkins  rather  ungraciously  rejects  the  compli- 
ments I  paid  him  a  couple  of  weeks  ago  and  therefore  I  must  take 
them  back.  He  sneers  at  my  "smart  way  of  putting  things,"  but  I 
will  not  repine;  nor  will  I  return  evil  for  evil.  I  will  not  retort  upon 
him,  nor  charge  him  with  saying  anything  smart.  I  will  cheerfully 
testify  to  his  innocence  in  that  regard  He  kindly  advises  me  to 
'  think  more  and  publish  less."  No  doubt,  Mr.  Perkins  thinks  ten 
times  more  than  I  do,  which  perhaps  will  explain  the  diluted  charac- 
ter of  his  thought.  Quality,  not  quantity,  is  the  test  of  thought. 
Better  think  right  for  a  minute,  then  wrong  for  an  hour. 

Mr.  Perkins  is  apparently  anxious  to  abandon  his  own  ptemises 
for  some  other  ground  of  controversy  more  favorable  for  him.  I 
decline  to  go  with  him,  nor  can  I  permit  him  to  coax  me  or  provoke 
me  into  a  false  position.  I  cannot  accept  his  challenge  to  defend  the 
abuses  of  land  ownership  and  the  extortions  of  the  landlord  system 
I  would  make  things  better  instead  of  worse,  and  therefore  I  oppose 
the  scheme  of  Mr.  George  and  his  disciples  to  deprive  the  American 
farmer  of  independence,  and  reduce  him  to  the  condition  of  a  vassal 
and  a  tenant.     I  wish  to  make  every  tiller  of  the  soil  a  free  man,  the 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  297 

owner  oi  the  land  he  plows.     The  "single  lax"  apostles  desire  to 
make  him  a  serf,  the  dependent  villain  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Perkins  thinks  that,  Scully's  Illinois  tenants  would  be  more 
successful  farmers  if  they  did  not  have  to  pay  two-thirds  of  their 
crops  as  rent.  I  doubt  that  Scully's  tenants  pay  two-thirds  of  their 
crops  as  rent;  but  if  they  do,  they  are  better  off  than  they  would  be 
under  the  landlord  that  Mr.  George  desires  to  put  over  them.  Hear 
him  again: 

"Now  it  is  evident  that  in  order  to  take  for  the  use  of  the  community  the  -whole 
income  arising  from  land,  just  as  effectually  as  it  could  be  taken  by  formally  ap- 
propriating and  letting  out  the  land,  it  is  only  necessary  to  abolish,  one  after 
the  other,  all  other  taxes  now  levied,  and  increase  the  tax  on  land  values  until  it 
reaches,  as  near  as  may  be,  the  full  annual  value  of  the  land^ 

The  mythical  "Scully,"  even  by  the  exaggerated  statement  of 
Mr.  Perkins,  would  only  take  two-thirds  of  the  products  of  the  land, 
while  the  beneficent  "single-tax"  landlord  would  take  the  whole 
income  of  it,  and  levy  rent  amounting  to  \.\\q  full  anmial  value  of  the 
land.  I  present  again  this  project  of  despotism  because  my  critics 
tenderly  step  around  it  on  tip-toe,  as  if' afraid  of  waking  it.  They 
try  to  conjure  it  out  of  sight  by  the  "single  tax  device  "  which  is 
elastic  enough  to  stretch  from  a  mild  and  gentle  method  of  taxation 
to  a  sinister  plan  for  confiscating  every  farm  within  the  dominion  of 
the  American  republic. 

Mr.  Perkins  says  that  I  misrepresented  his  statement  concerning 
the  postmorteftt  rights  of  a  man  in  land  and  its  products.  If  so,  I  am 
sorry  for  it.  I  would  not  willingly  misrepresent  the  position  of  an 
adversary.  In  this  case  I  must  have  failed,  ro  understand  the  state- 
ment made  by  Mr.  Perkins,  but  he  will  admit  that  it  might  easily  be 
misunderstood.  I  ask  him  to  read  it  again.  Here  it  is:  "It  is  true 
that  every  man  has  a  right  to  as  much  control  over  land  as  is  needful 
for  his  use  and  enjoyment  of  it,  and  for  the  security  of  the  fruits  of 
his  labor.  It  is  not  true  that  this  right  exists  after  his  death  "  If 
that  is  not  what  Mr.  Perkins  meant,  he  is  misrepresented  by  himself 
and  not  by  me.  His  own  language  led  me  astray.  What  makes  a 
farmer  feel  secure  in  the  right  to  "the  fruits  of  his  labor?"  He  is 
stimulated  in  his  work  and  comforted  by  the  knowledge  that  his  right 
will  be  continued  in  his  widow  and  his  children.  This  law  is  of  the 
highest  social  value;  it  is  the  moral  strength  of  life;  it  makes  man 
and  his  work  immortal,  so  far  as  anything  can  be  immortal  on  this 
earth.  When  Mr.  Perkins  declared  that  a  man's  right  to  his  home 
and  the  "fruits  of  his  labor"  ceased  at  his  death    I  was  justified  in 


298  WHEELBARROW. 

asking  those  questions  about  the  widow  and  the  children.  Every 
man  who  plants  corn  in  the  spring  knows  that  he  may  die  before 
harvest,  but  he  is  animated  by  the  thought  that  in  case  of  his  death 
his  folks  may  gather  the  crop.  The  Third  Reader  used  to  have  a 
story  like  this,  "An  old  man  was  planting  an  apple  tree  A  fool 
came  along  and  said,  '  What  foolishness  is  this!  You  will  never  live 
to  eat  apples  from  that  tree  '  'I  know  it,'  said  the  old  man,  'but 
my  children  may.'  " 

I  would  confirm  the  right  which  Mr.  Perkins  grants  by  making 
the  user  of  the  land  the  owner  of  the  land.  In  what  other  way  can 
the  "  right  to  control  "  be  made  so  effective  as  by  ownership?  The 
very  best  lease  is  an  inferior  security.  It  gives  the  lessee  a  limited 
"  control  over  land,"  but  a  control  qualified  by  time,  and  hampered 
by  tributes  and  terms. 

Mr.  Perkins  condescendingly  assumes  that  his  readers  "know 
some  things."  He  could  hardly  have  assumed  that  when  he  wrote  his 
curious  reflections  on  "paper  titles."  It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat 
my  answer  to  that  part  of  his  former  article  but  I  think  it  has  had 
some  influence  in  modifying  the  opinions  of  Mr-  Perkins.  He  now 
appears  to  be  willing  to  recognize  a  "  paper  "  bill  of  sale,  a  "  paper" 
note,  a  "  paper  "  mortgage  on  improvements,  and  a  "paper"  quit 
claim  deed.  He  thinks  it  very  likely  that  I  never  heard  of  quitclaim 
deeds.  Yes,  I  have  heard  of  them  ;  I  saw  one  a  few  years  ago,  and 
I  was  told  that  it  would  pass  the  interest  of  the  grantor  just  as 
effectually  as  a  warranty  deed  made  on  parchment  of  the  finest  quality. 
"  Title  to  improvements,"  says  Mr.  Perkins,  "  could  be  conveyed  by 
bill  of  sale  as  well  as  by  deed."  If  so,  it  is  a  "  paper  title"  just  as 
good  as  a  deed,  and  ought  to  come  under  the  same  condemnation. 
Say,  for  instance,  a  bill  of  sale  to  an  orchard,  a  vineyard,  a  mill- 
dam,  or  a  well. 

Did  Mr.  Perkins  assume  that  his  readers  '  knew  some  things  " 
when  he  was  telling  them  about  the  queer  inhabitants  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Nahant,  "who,  when  they  buy  land,  omit  to  record  the  deed,  pre- 
ferring to  get  a  title  by  simple  occupation"  ?  What  do  those  strange 
people  take  deeds  for,  except  as  evidence  of  title?  And  why  should  a 
native  of  Nahant  risk  his  title  for  twenty  years,  when  he  can  estab- 
lish it  in  twenty  minutes  by  simply  recording  his  deed? 

Mr.  Perkins  can  hardly  expect  that  his  readers  will  assume  that 
he  "  knows  some  things,"  when  he  tells  them  that  "in  the  older  States, 
if  the  holder  of  a  title  deed  neglects  to  assert  his  legal  privileges, 
twenty  years'  possession  of  the  land  gives  any  other  man  a  perfect 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  299 

title,  despite  the  deed.".  That  must  be  in  the  State  of  Nahant.  If 
Mr.  Perkins  will  look  a  little  deeper  into  that  matter,  he  will  find  that 
the  "twenty  years'  possession"  must  be  of  a  certain  legal  character, 
havinfi  certain  qualities  outside  the  mere  possession;  and  he  will  find 
that  a  twenty  years'  trespass  gives  no  title  at  all.  His  readers  will  be 
still  more  doubtful  about  his  knowledge  of  "some  things,"  when  he 
tells  them  that  title  to  some  of  the  "  best  land  in  Boston  was  gained 
thus  by  a  'squatter'  within  the  present  century."  Such  chimney-corner 
legends  are  hardly  within  the  scope  of  serious  debate. 


THE  CUT-WORM  AND  THE  WETEVIL. 

In  The  Open  Court  for  Oct.  3d,  Mr.  W.  J.  Atkinson  asks  me 
a  few  questions.  Quoting  my  assertion  that  "without  the  right  or 
hope  of  ownership  there  is  no  stimulus  to  production,"  he  inquires, 
"Ownership  in  what?  In  the  instrument  of  production  or  in  the  arti- 
cle produced  ?^'  To  that  I  answer.  In  both,  if  possible,  in  order  to 
make  more  certain  the  future  enjoyment  of  the  product.  If  a  pro- 
ducer does  not  own  the  instrument  of  production,  he  must  pay  rent 
for  the  use  of  it,  or  he  must  become  the  hired  man  of  the  owner.  As 
a  hired  laborer,  I  discovered  long  ago  that  the  man  who  works  for 
wages  at  any  instrument  of  production,  will,  as  a  rule,  get  less 
product  out  of  it  thin  he  would  get  if  he  owned  the  instrument. 
The  man  who  pays  rent  for  an  instrument  of  production,  will  gt  t  all 
he  can  out  of  it,  but  he  has  no  interest  in  its  welfare,  nor  does  he  care 
to  preserve  or  increase  its  productive  power  beyond  the  time  for  which 
he  has  hired  it. 

This  rule  attaches  more  closely  to  land  than  to  many  other  things 
because  land  refuses  to  do  business  except  on  long  credit.  It  will  not 
pay  its  laborers  for  months,  and  sometimes  it  makes  them  wait  long 
years  for  their  wages  He  who  breaks  the  virgin  soil  must  wait  until 
the  second  year  for  a  crop  of  wheat;  he  must  wait  ten  years  for  a 
crop  of  apples.  No  tenant  with  a  short  lease  will  ever  plant  an 
orchard,  repair  the  fences,  or  manure  the  land.  It  may  be  true  that 
God  made  the  land,  but  man  makes  the  farm;  and  the  most  produc- 
tive farm  is  made  by  the  man  who  owns  the  land  he  plows.  I  want 
the  farmer  to  own  this  instrument  of  production,  that  he  may  be  sure 
of  the  "article  produced."  It  is  true,  as  Mr.  Atkinson  fays,  that  a 
large  part  of  the  production  of  the  country  comes  from   leased  lands, 


300  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

but  it  is  also  true  that  a  larger  product  would  be  had,  if  the  tenants 
who  hire  those  lands,  were  owners  of  the  soil. 

Mr.  Atkinson  thinks  that  my  maxim  in  reference  to  individual 
exertion  and  individual  reward  is  broken,  when  the  tax-gatherer  calls 
and  says,  "Mr.  Wheelbarrow,  because  you  have  been  industrious, 
and  Mr.  Bicycle  idle,  your  taxes  are  heavy  and  his  light."  Mr.  At- 
kinson means  to  show  by  this  that  the  taxation  of  labor's  product 
lessens  the  incentive  to  exertion,  and  encourages  idleness.  The  moral 
of  the  parable  fails,  because  all  taxes  must  come  out  of  the  products 
of  industry.  All  the  product  of  the  nation's  idleness  will  not  yield 
ten  dollars'  worth  of  taxes  in  a  year.  The  whole  statesmanship  of 
the  question  lies  in  fair  and  equitable  assessment,  so  that  one  indus- 
try shall  not  pay  taxes  and  another  escape  taxation.  If  idleness  could 
yield  revenue,  it  would  be  wise  to  levy  all  taxation  upon  idleness,  and 
exempt  industry  altogether;  but,  unfortunately,  idleness  is  not  a 
tax-payer.  No  matter  how  we  may  contrive  or  disguise  taxation, 
whatever  cash  revenue  is  obtained  by  it,  must  come  out  of  the 
"product  of  industry.'  We  can  as  easily  get  revenue  out  of  moon- 
beams as  out  of  abstract  "values,"  separate  from  the  substance  which 
industry  has  made. 

Continuing  the  catechism,  Mr.  Atkinson  asks  this  question: 
"Would  it  not  be  better  to  say,  henceforth,  if  a  man  desires  to  erect 
a  building,  we  will  not  fine  him  for  it?"  I  Answer,  Yes!  I  think  it 
would  be  very  foolish  and  unjust  to  fine  a  man  for  building  a  house, 
and  I  have  never  yet  heard  of  such  a  practice  in  any  civilized  commu- 
nity. What  Mr.  Atkinson  means  is  that  the  taxation  of  a  house  is  a 
fine  for  building  it,  and  he  further  insinuates  that  the  taxation  of  per- 
sonal property  is  a  fine  imposed  upon  "thrift,  energy,  industry,  and 
enterprise."  Mr  Atkinson  would  not  fine  a  man  for  being  rich;  I  would 
not  fine  a  man  for  being  poor.  If  taxes  are  fines,  they  must  be  paid 
by  one  or  the  other,  and  I  prefer  that  the  rich  man  pay  them.  I  do 
not  think  that  money,  stocks,  bonds,  ships,  railroads,  factories,  mer- 
chandise, street-cars,  jewelry,  plate,  carriages,  and  horses,  ought  to 
be  exempt  from  taxation,  because  they  happen  to  be  the  visible  signs 
of  thrift.  They  should  all  bear  a  fair  proportion  of  the  public  ex- 
penses, because  without  the  public  protection  they  could  not  exist 
at  all. 

I  offer  in  evidence  here  a  couple  of  hard  facts  in  the  form  of 
houses.  Just  round  the  corner  are  two  lots  of  the  same  size,  one 
exactly  opposite  the  other.  They  are  of  precisely  the  same  value. 
The  owner  of    one  of    them  is  Mr.  North,  a  bookkeeper,  who  has 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION.  301 

managed  by  thrift  and  industry  to  build  a  frame  house  worth  twenty- 
five  hundred  dollars,  and  his  furniture  is  worth  about  five  hundred 
dollars.  The  owner  of  the  other  lot,  Mr.  South,  has  built  a  house 
upon  it  worth  forty  thousand  dollars,  and  his  furniture,  stable,  horses, 
and  carriages,  are  worth  eight  thousand  dollars  more.  Besides  all 
this,  he  is  worth  a  million  dollars  in  bank  stock,  money,  and  mer 
chandise,  Mr.  Atkinson  and  Mr.  Henry  George  require  that  Mr. 
North  and  Mr.  South  shall  be  taxed  alike,  and  contribute  equal  sums 
to  the  public  treasury.  I  think  such  an  apportionment  would  be 
unjust,  and  if  attempted  by  the  law,  intolerable.  In  order  to  avoid 
fining  the  rich  man  for  being  rich,  Mr.  Atkinson  proposes  to  fine  the 
poor  man  for  being  poor.  This  impossible  scheme  of  injustice  he 
innocently  thinks  would  bring  about  "the  reign  of  common  sense  in 
taxation."  He  also  thinks  that  the  tribute  levied  on  Mr.  North  would 
not  be  a  tax  on  "the  product  of  labor."  How  is  the  man  to  pay  it, 
except  by  the  product  of  his  labor? 

Close  on  the  trail  of  Mr.  Atkinson  comes  Mr.  W.  E.  Brockaw 
in  No.  Ill  of  The  Open  Court.  He  takes  for  a  text  this  quotation 
from  an  article  of  mine,  "Men  will  not  cultivate  land  without  security 
of  tenure,  and  the  best  security  is  ownership.  Without  the  right  or 
hope  of  ownership,  there  is  no  stimulus  to  production  "  Then  he 
says: 

"It  is  strange  how  men  came  to  erect  such  fine  buildings  on  the  school  lands 
of  Chicago  without  any  stimulus  '  Without  the  'hope  of  ownership  '  and  there- 
fore with  no  'stimulus  to  production,'  men  pay  the  City  of  Chicago  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  dollars  ground-rent  for  the  mere  privilege  of  producmg  " 

I  answered  that  argument  three  months  ago,  when  it  was  offered 
in  The  Open  Court  by  Mr.  Pentecost.  I  will  only  repeat  this  part 
of  what  I  said  then.  The  owners  of  those  "fine  buildings"  took  very 
good  care  to  obtain  "security  of  tenure"  before  they  laid  a  brick. 
They  took  a  seventy-years'  lease  of  the  lots.  In  other  words,  they 
became  owners  of  the  lots  for  a  term  of  seventy  years.  The  long 
lease  was  the  "stimulus"  to  build.  Last  spring  a  citizen  of  Chicago 
contracted  to  build  a  magnificent  hotel  on  a  lot  for  which  he  had  a 
three  years'  lease.  He  had  hardly  begun  to  lay  the  foundation,  when, 
as  might  have  been  expected,  he  was  taken  to  the  lunatic  asylum,  and 
there  he  is  yet.  Did  Mr.  Brockaw  ever  see  a  man  fit  to  be  at  large, 
erecting  "fine  buildings"  without  ample  security  of  tenure? 

I  congratulate  myself  that  Mr.  Brockaw  almost  recognizes  the 
contrast  which  I  pointed  out  between  the  civilizing  influence  of  per- 
sonal land-ownership,  and  the  Red   Indian  system  of    land  commu- 


302  WHEELBARR  O  W. 

nism.  He  now  says,  "Individual /^j'j^jj/^w  of  land  everywhere  marks 
the  advance  of  civilization.  Common  or  communal  possession  of  land 
everywhere  marks  the  savage."  This  attempt  to  make  a  distinction 
between  possession  and  orunership  scarcely  affects  the  principle  for 
which  I  contend.  When  it  is  conceded  that  individual  title  to  the 
possession  of  land  is  an  essential  element  of  civilization,  the  rest  of 
my  claim  will  soon  be  conceded  also;  because  in  that  case  the  strong- 
est and  most  durable  right  of  possession  must  be  the  best;  and  that 
is  possession  by  right  of  ownership. 

The  attempt  to  make  the  right  of  possession  and  the  right  of 
ownership  antagonistic  and  hostile  principles  in  a  civilization  where 
one  of  them  is  absolutely  necessary, '  is  an  impossible  task,  because 
the  right  of  possession  is  itself  a  qualified  right  of  ownership. 
There  is  no  difference  between  a  right  of  possession  and  a  right  of 
ownership  except  in  duration  and  degree.  If  a  man  has  the  exclu- 
sive individual  right  to  the  use  and  possession  of  a  farm  for  ten  years, 
he  is  the  owner  against  all  the  world  until  the  expiration  of  that  time. 
We  invert  the  rules  of  reason  when  we  say  that  "although  individual 
possession  is  necessary  to  social  development,  individual  ownership  of 
land  is  wrong  in  principle." 

Mr.  Brockaw  tells  us  that  Herbert  Spencer  and  others  have  writ- 
ten "with  a  force  of  logic  which  is  overwhelming  against  the  right  of 
individual  ownership  of  the  resources  of  nature,"  and  then  in  great 
astonishment  he  inquires,  "Why  have  their  unanswerable  arguments 
had  so  little  effect?"  My  guess  at  the  conundrum  is  this,  because 
they  were  not  unanswerable;  and  for  a  like  reason  the  overwhelming 
logic  did  not  overwhelm,  Mr.  Brockaw  answers  thus,  "Because  they 
saw  no  way  to  harmonize  the  right  of  individual  possession  with  the 
%vrong  of  individual  ownership."  A  very  sensible  reason  when  we 
consider  the  opposite  qualities  of  right  and  wrong,  and  how  hard  it 
is  to  bring  them  into  harmony.  I  advise  Mr.  Brockaw  not  to  try 
where  Herbert  Spencer  failed;  if  he  did  fail,  of  which  I  am  not  sure, 
because  I  hardly  think  that  he  has  ever  tried  to  harmonize  the  right  oi 
one  thing  with  the  tvrong  of  something  else.  To  harmonize  the  right 
of  possession  and  the  right  of  ownership  is  easy  enough;  and  if  it  is 
conceded  that  either  is  right  in  principle,  the  other  cannot  in  princi- 
ple be  wrong.  If  it  is  wrong  in  principle  to  own  land  for  a  hundred 
years,  it  is  wrong  to  own  it  for  ten  years  or  for  one  year. 

Mr.  Brockaw's  premises  come  to  an  untimely  and  inconsequent 
end  in  the  curious  admission  that  "A  nation  of  homes— ^.m^W  inde- 
pendent   holdings — is   generally   believed   to   be   the    best."      Have 


THE  SINGLE  TAX  QUESTION,  303 

I  not  been  contending  for  independent  homes?  and  have  I  not  been 
criticised  and  rebuked  for  doing  so  by  Mr.  Brockaw  and  other  de- 
fenders of  the  single-tax  philosophy?  Is  it  not  the  declared  purpose 
of  Mr.  George  and  his  followers  to  abolish  all  "independent  hold- 
ings" by  the  scheme  of  the  "single-tax,"  so  that  there  shall  not  be 
any  such  thing  as  an  independent  home  in  the  United  States?  Mr. 
Brockaw  insists  that  no  man  shall  have  an  'independent  holding"  but 
that  every  holder  of  land  shall  be  a  tenant;  and  he  reasons  as  if  rent 
were  a  natural  incident  attaching  to  land  like  grass,  when  in  fact  it  is 
an  unnatural  infliction  resulting  from  an  artificial  social  state 

Mr.  Brockaw,  still  believing  that  rent  is  "native  to  the  manor 
born,"  and  racy  of  the  soil,  says,  "The  tenant  might  as  well  pay  his 
rent  to  the  government  as  to  an  individual."  Certainly,  but  it  is  bet- 
ter for  him  to  be  free  from  rent  entirely;  better  for  him  to  have  a 
'home,"  an  "independent"  holding  than  a  dependent  holding,  for 
which  he  must  do  homage  and  pay  rent  to  his  neighbor,  or  to  the 
government.  If  the  farmer  every  year  must  lose  a  portion  of  his 
crop,  it  may  make  no  difference  to  him  whether  the  weevil  or  the  cut- 
worm gets  it,  but  it  is  not  necessary  that  either  of  thfe  pests  should 
have  it;  and  in  the  matter  of  rent,  so  far  as  the  farmer  is  concerned, 
the  private  landlord  and  the  public  landlord  are  to  him  as  the 
cut-worm  and  the  weevil. 


^4^  OV  THE 

UHI7BRSIT7; 


PUBLICATIONS    OF    THE 

Open  Court  Pub.  Co. 

169—175  La  Salle  St.,  P.  O.  Drawer  F.,  CHICAGO. 

LONDON   PUBLISHERS,-  LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO. 

The  Psychology  of  Attention. 


By  TH.   RIBOT. 

Professor  of  Comparative  and   Experimental  Psychology 

AT  THE  College  de  France,  and  editor  of 

THE  "Revue  Philosophique." 


A  uthorised  Translation. 


Treating  of  the  following  topics  : 

SPONTANEOUS,  OR  NATURAL,  ATTENTION. 

a.  Emotional  States. 

b.  Physical  Manifestations. 

c.  Surprise. 

VOLUNTARY,  OR  ARTIFICIAL,  ATTENTION. 

a.  Its  Mechanism. 

b.  Inhibition. 

c.  The  Feeling  of  Effort. 

THE   MORBID  STATES  OF  ATTENTION. 

a.  Distraction. 

b.  Hypochondria. 

c.  Fixed  Ideas  and  Ecstasy. 

d.  Idiocy. 

e.  Attention  in  Sleep  and  Hypnosis. 

Cloth^  75  Cents. 


PRESS    NOTICES. 

"  The  work  will  be  read  with  an  eager  interest  and  with  profit  by  all  who  have 
followed  the  recent  developments  of  psychology  upon  the  basis  of  biological 
science." — Scotsman^  Edinburgh. 

"  A  little  book  wh  ch  all  having  the  proper  training  of  children  at  heart,  will 
do  well  to  read."— Art  Amateur. 


FUNDAMENTAL  PROBLEMS. 

The     Method    of     Philosophy    as    a     Systematic 
Arrangement  of  Knowledge. 

By  DR    PAUL  CVVRUS. 

Price ^  One  Dellar. 

PRESS  NOTICES. 

"A  good  introduction  to  the  study  of  formal  philosophy."— 7Vi^  Scotsman. 
Edinburgh. 

"Le  lecteur  ne  sera  pas  dispense  de  voir  les  details  et  de  lire  I'oeuvre  elle- 
mfime." — Revue  Philos  phique. 

"We  like  to  read  much  of  what  Dr.  Carus  has  written  on  these  short  studies. 
It  is  reverent,  elevated,  and  comprehensive.  He  is  willing  for  other  people  to 
think  for  themselves,  and  his  work  is  very  suggestive." — Public  Opinioti. 

"Dem  Verfasser  stehen  neben  seiner  griindlichen  philosophischen  Bildung 
tuchtige  naturwissenschaftliche  Kenntnisic  zur  S,e]Xe.''—Natur'wissenscha/tliche 
Wochenschrift^  Berlin. 

"A  work  of  profound  philosophy  and  logical  thinking.  Dr.  Carus  is  an  ele- 
gant and  eloquent  exponent  of  Monism.  His  reasoning  is  clear  and  well  defined." 
— New  York  Hebrew  Standard. 

"  Mjog  lj6slega  og  greinilega  ritud  b6k  um  heimspeki."  ("A  philosophical 
work,  written  with  great  clearness  and  lucidity."— rV^i/<7//",  Reykjavik,  Iceland. 

"His  reasoning  has  a  strong  moral  and  ethical  ten  lency."— Boston  Beacon. 

"The  book  sets  strongly  in  the  direction  of  the  loftiest  and  most  satisfactory 
philosophical  and  scientific  thought  now  making  its  appeal  to  the  intelligence  and 
aspiration  of  the  world."— T//^  Christian  Register,  Yioston. 


The  Psychic  Life  of  Micro-Organisms. 

A  Study  in  Experimental  Psychology. 

By  ALFRED   BINET. 

This  book  has  aroused  the  liveliest  discussion.  Mr.  George 
John  Romanes,  the  eminent  English  scientist,  whose  position  on  the 
subject  of  the  development  of  psychical  powers  M.  Binet,  in  the 
preface  of  his  work,  so  sharply  criticises,  afterward  contributed  to 
the  columns  of  IVie  Open  Court  an  article  in  which  he  vindicated  the 
standpoint  he  had  taken,  and  criticised  in  return  the  psychology  of 
M.  Binet.  M.  Binet  replied,  and  Mr.  Romanes  rejoined;  accompany- 
ing Mr.  Romanes's  Rejoinder  were  published  critical  notes  by  M. 
Binet.  Copies  of  The  Open  Court  containing  the  discussion,  may  be 
obtained  for  40  x:ents 

\tmo.  12,2 pages.     Cloth,  75  Cts.,  Paper,  50  Cts. 

PRESS  NOTICES. 

"He  fortifies  his  theory  by  such  a  wealth  of  exact  observations  and  experi- 
ments, that  the  reader  who  follows  his  demonstration  carefully  can  hardly  fail  of 
conviction." — New  York  Tribune. 

"In  putting  forth  so  early  after  its  appearance  in  French  this  careful  transla- 
tion of  M.  Hinet's  study  of  'The  Psychic  Life  of  Micro-Organisms,'  The  Open 
Court  Pub.  Co.  has  shown  at  once  enterprise  and  discrimination." — Mind,  London. 

"We  recommend  the  book  to  all  earnest  students  of  the  great  problems  of 
evolution,  as  being  unexcelled  in  the  representation  of  modern  biological  investi- 
gations."— Refortned  Quarterly  Review. 


THREE  INTRODUCTORY  LECTURES  ON 

THE   SCIENCE    OF  THOUGHT 

(First  published  in  The  Open  Court  o(  June,  July,  and  Aug.,  1SS7.) 

By   F.    max    MULLER. 


1.  The  Simplicity  of  Language; 

2.  The  Identity  of  Language  and  Thought;  and 

3.  The  Simplicity  of  Thought. 

With  an  Appendix  which  contains  a  Correspondence  on  "Thought  without 
Words  "  between  F.  Max  Miiller  and  Francis  Galton,  the  Duke  of  Argyle,  George 
Romanes  and  Others 

Neatly  Bound  in  Cloth.    Price ^  75  Cts. 

PRESS    NOTICES. 

"Tney  are  the  ripe  expression  of  a  life  long  labor  in  the  study  of  the  science 
of  language.  To  the  student  of  the  science  of  language  the  lectures  open  up  a 
most  suggestive  and  fascinating  prospect  in  the  encouragement  which  they  give 
for  its  further  perfection." — Scotsman^  Edinburgh. 

"They  are  studded  with  luminous  suggestions  of  value  to  students  of  lan- 
guage, logic,  and  the  allied  sciences." — Art  Amateur. 

"These  lectures  are  worthy  of  Max  Miiller  as  a  philologist  and  a  thinker— full 
of  instruction  and  philosophic  suggesiiou." — Pro/.  Theodore  W.  Hunt.,  of  Prince- 
ton College. 

In  Preparation  (1890): 

THE  SOUL  OF  MAN. 

By  dr.  PAUL  CARUS. 

A  popular  exposition  of  the  most  important  psychological  truths,  profusely 
illustrated  with  physiological  diagrams. 


THREE  LECTURES  on  the  SCIENCE  OF  LANGUAGE. 

By  F.   Max  Miiller. 

THE  DISEASES  OF   PERSONALITY.    By  Th.  Ribot. 


THE   IDEA  OF  GOD. 

By  Dr.  PATJLi  CARTJS.     Being  a  disquisition  ujKin  the  development  of  the 

Idea  of  God  in   human  thought  and  history.     In   pamphlet   form   (second 

edition).     Price,  15  Cents. 

"The  writer  defines  God  as  'The  Ethical  Life  of  Nature'  and  supports  his 
definition  with  much  solid  argument." — Watts' s  Literary  Guide.,  London. 

"An  effort  to  purify  our  'Idea  oi  God'  that  it  may  be  greater,  sublimer,  and 
more  awe-inspiring  to  future  generations,  than  it  has  ever  been  yet,  though  it  is 
the  grandest  thought  which  in  ages  past  humanity  has  ventured  to  think." — Liter- 
ary World.,  London. 

"We  are  glad  to  see  Atheism  taking  to  itself  an  ideal  God."— Canadian  Meth- 
odist Quarterly. 

MAKING   BREAD  DEAR. 

An   Economical   Controversy  between  Wheelbarrow  and   Sympathizer.     In 
pamphlet  form.     Price,  10  Cents. 

This  little  pamphlet  is  a  reprint  from  the  columns  of  The  Open  Court 
of  an  able  and  spirited  controversy  between  "Wheelbarrow  "  and  a  prominent 
Chicago  financier.     The  title  indicates  the  subject. 

THE   MARRIAGE   PROBLEM. 

Discussed  from  a  Scientific  and  Ethical  Standpoint.     By  Prof.  E.  D.  COPE. 
In  pamphlet  form.     Price,  15  Cents. 

[N.  B.    Pamphlets  to  be  ordered  from  publishers  direct,  or  Watts  &  Co.,  17  John- 
son's Court,  Fleet  Street,  London.] 


The  Open  Court. 


A  WEEKLY  MAGAZINE  OF  SCIENCE  ^^  PHILOSOPHY. 

Editor,  Dr.  Paul  Carus.  X  President,  E.  C.  Hegeler. 


Contributions  and  Essays  by 


Prof.  MAX  MULLER. 

GEO.  J.  ROMANES. 

Prof.  E.  D.  COPE. 

ERNST  HAECKEL. 

ALFRED  BINET. 

TH.  RIBOT. 

Prof.  EWALD   HERING. 

LUCIEN  ARREAT. 

Prof.  GEO.  VON  GIZYCKI. 

Prof.  W.  PREYER. 

WM.  M.  SALTER. 


Gen.  M.  M.  TRUMBULL. 
Prof.  ERNST  MACH. 
MONCURE  D.  CONWAY. 
Dr.  FELIX  L.  OSWALD. 
Prof.  AUGUST  WEISMANN. 
Prof.  JOSEPH  JASTROW. 
CARUS  STERNE. 
CARL  HEINRICH  CORNILL. 
Prof.  H.  OLDENBERG. 
LUDWIG  NOIRE. 
And  Others. 


The  current  numbers  of  The  Open  Court  contain  valuable  original 
articles  from  the  pens  of  distinguished  investigators  and  litterateurs. 
Accurate  and  authorised  translations  are  made  in  Philosophy, 
Science,  and  Criticism  from  the  periodical  literature  of  Continental 
Europe,  and  reviews  of  all  noteworthy  recent  investigations  are  pre- 
sented. It  is  the  pronounced  object  of  The  Open  Court  to  Harmon- 
ise Religion  with  Science  ;  and  the  philosophical  problems  that 
bear  upon  this  important  question  are  editorially  treated  in  its  col- 
umns.    A  wide  range  of  discussion  is  allowed  all  who  will  participate. 

The  Open  Court  is  neither  exclusive  nor  sectarian,  but  liberal;  it 
seeks  to  aid  the  efforts  of  all  scientific  and  progressive  people  in  the 
churches  and  out  of  them,  toward  greater  knowledge  of  the  world  in 
which  we  live,  and  the  moral  and  practical  duties  it  requires. 

Subscription  price,  post  free  (United  States  and  Canada),  for 
twelve  months,  $2.00.     Six  months,  $1.00.     Single  copies,  10  cents 

Send  for  specimen  copies  (free). 

Address, 

THE  OPEN  COURT  PUBLISHING  CO. 

169-175  La  Salle  St.,  Chicago,  III,,  U.  S.  A. 
London  Agents : 

WATTS  &  CO.,  17  Johnson's  Court,  Fleet  St.,  and 
BRENTANO'S,  430  Strand. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO— >»■     202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2                       ; 

3 

4 

5                               ( 

b 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

JAN  25 1989 

r  nin  DISC  JNI 1 7  *89 

'""MM  i99c 

mm  MAY  2  5  fi 

WJ 

APR  1 2  20 

10 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1/83  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


®s 


1.P 


21' 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


C0Qb7m27lD 


